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

by Nuala 06.07.15 22:02

@ Tony Bennett

I'll just address this bit while you have chance to look at the correct page. None of your other questions were relevant to what we're currently looking at so you will probably have different questions when you've had a chance to look.

OK, so you don't know why four links take you direct to the CEOP page and not to the Wayback archives

I don't know for sure. And the reason I don't know for sure is because it's irrelevant, so I don't care.

Should it be relevant, or become relevant, then I will care, and then I will find out for sure.

I hope that clarifies smilie

by **Tony Bennett** 06.07.15 22:13

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

When I click on the above link (with the asterisk), it gives me dates when the Wayback Machine crawled the web, and apparently 'found' things (data). These dates do not now include anything at all having been 'found' on 30 April 2007 - i.e. no crawl was made of the CEOP website on that date.

If you click on the above link it won't work because this forum doesn't recognise the asterisk. That's why I said you might have to copy and paste. So copy the whole of the URL including the asterisk and then paste it into the address bar of your browser.

I will now read the rest of what you've said, but wanted to post this because you're looking at a different page, the wrong page..

I copied and pasted the link you gave, but the asterisk didn't paste, so, the first time, I saw lots of pages of calendars for different years with blue rings round certain dates on each page.

This time I manually added the asterisk in the search bar, but it came up 'Page Not Found'.

So I am no further forward.

Are you able to screen-shot one of these four links you mentioned, please, so that we all know - and can see - exactly what you are referring to, many thanks if you can

by Nuala 06.07.15 22:48

Tony, it's not going to help you to see a screenshot of one of the links, because that's not the page we're looking at, and anyway the links are redirected to the current CEOP home page, so that is the screenshot you would get, if you see what I mean. So again, that's not going to help you.

This time I manually added the asterisk in the search bar, but it came up 'Page Not Found'.

Run your mouse over the whole of the link and everything including the asterisk will be selected.

Then copy.

If it came up with Page Not Found you did something wrong, so try that. Perhaps you had a space before the asterisk or something when you added it manually, but anyway, try selecting the whole of the link again.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.07.15 23:24

Nuala wrote:Tony, it's not going to help you to see a screenshot of one of the links, because that's not the page we're looking at, and anyway the links are redirected to the current CEOP home page, so that is the screenshot you would get, if you see what I mean. So again, that's not going to help you.

This time I manually added the asterisk in the search bar, but it came up 'Page Not Found'.

Run your mouse over the whole of the link and everything including the asterisk will be selected.

Then copy.

If it came up with Page Not Found you did something wrong, so try that. Perhaps you had a space before the asterisk or something when you added it manually, but anyway, try selecting the whole of the link again.

@ Nuala

Thank you. You are certainly very patient.

OK, this is my report:

1. This time I clicked on to a page which began in big green letters: 8,793 URLs have been captured [on the CEOP website]

2. The first line read: URL - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 269 captures, 112 duplicates, 117 uniques

3. The page, or rather pages, took a minute or two to load. In fact, altogether there were 176 pages of URLs to read

4. When all the pages had been displayed, to my surprise the first line (and other early lines) on page 1 had changed completely and there was now some other entry for (I think) 3 April 2005 on the first l ine. I don't know why these early lines changed

5. When I got to page 2 out of the 176 pages, I noted that every entry said '30 April 2007'. I clicked on page 3, then 4, and so on. Every entry was again: '30 April 2007'. I went on doing this until page 15 and it was all the same, every page filled with a dozen or couple of dozen entries all reading '30 April 2007'.

Was this what I was meant to see?

I cannot for the life of me make head nor tail of these 176 pages and why so many entries are dated 30 April 2007. It looks like an awful lot of dates that are wrong if Wayback are telling us that they crawled all these links on the one day (30 April).

I am quite happy to be told that my questions are irrelevant, if they are irrelevant, but I think you'll first have to help me understand what you wanted me to see and understand on that link.

I am assuming for now that Wayback has made an utter botch of trawling the CEOP page and has got hundreds of entries with totally the wrong date (30 April 2007). Am I right?

Where on those 176 pages can I find the 'mccann.html' page with the old photo of Madeleine on it?

by Nuala 07.07.15 0:05

Tony, yes it takes a while to load, but now you're on the correct page.

4. When all the pages had been displayed, to my surprise the first line (and other early lines) on page 1 had changed completely and there was now some other entry for (I think) 3 April 2005 on the first l ine. I don't know why these early lines changed

That's just Wayback updating.

5. When I got to page 2 out of the 176 pages, I noted that every entry said '30 April 2007'. I clicked on page 3, then 4, and so on. Every entry was again: '30 April 2007'. I went on doing this until page 15 and it was all the same, every page filled with a dozen or couple of dozen entries all reading '30 April 2007'.

Was this what I was meant to see?

Yes.

I cannot for the life of me make head nor tail of these 176 pages and why so many entries are dated 30 April 2007. It looks like an awful lot of dates that are wrong if Wayback are telling us that they crawled all these links on the one day (30 April).

Yes, it's an awful lot of dates that are wrong.

I am quite happy to be told that my questions are irrelevant, if they are irrelevant, but I think you'll first have to help me understand what you wanted me to see and understand on that link.

You're seeing exactly what is there, and that's what it's important you see. The data is screwed.

I am assuming for now that Wayback has made an utter botch of trawling the CEOP page and has got hundreds of entries with totally the wrong date (30 April 2007). Am I right?

Yes, you're right.

Where on those 176 pages can I find the 'mccann.html' page with the old photo of Madeleine on it?

Apologies, but it's very late and I've had a long day. Without checking I'd have to say it will no longer be there because Wayback has been correcting it's error. But I will check again tomorrow and clarify.

If you want to specifically search though just type mccann.html in the search box on the page and Wayback will give you the URLs for that and you can see what Wayback currently has.

by Claire25 07.07.15 0:22

Apologies if this has already been discussed, struggling to keep up with this thread.. Is this date/time on 30th April GMT? WM is American isn't it, so would that time be too? Thanks in advance

by **Tony Bennett** 07.07.15 0:47

Nuala wrote:Tony, yes it takes a while to load, but now you're on the correct page.

4. When all the pages had been displayed, to my surprise the first line (and other early lines) on page 1 had changed completely and there was now some other entry for (I think) 3 April 2005 on the first l ine. I don't know why these early lines changed

That's just Wayback updating.

5. When I got to page 2 out of the 176 pages, I noted that every entry said '30 April 2007'. I clicked on page 3, then 4, and so on. Every entry was again: '30 April 2007'. I went on doing this until page 15 and it was all the same, every page filled with a dozen or couple of dozen entries all reading '30 April 2007'.

Was this what I was meant to see?

Yes.

I cannot for the life of me make head nor tail of these 176 pages and why so many entries are dated 30 April 2007. It looks like an awful lot of dates that are wrong if Wayback are telling us that they crawled all these links on the one day (30 April).

Yes, it's an awful lot of dates that are wrong.

I am quite happy to be told that my questions are irrelevant, if they are irrelevant, but I think you'll first have to help me understand what you wanted me to see and understand on that link.

You're seeing exactly what is there, and that's what it's important you see. The data is screwed.

I am assuming for now that Wayback has made an utter botch of trawling the CEOP page and has got hundreds of entries with totally the wrong date (30 April 2007). Am I right?

Yes, you're right.

Where on those 176 pages can I find the 'mccann.html' page with the old photo of Madeleine on it?

Apologies, but it's very late and I've had a long day. Without checking I'd have to say it will no longer be there because Wayback has been correcting it's error. But I will check again tomorrow and clarify.

If you want to specifically search though just type mccann.html in the search box on the page and Wayback will give you the URLs for that and you can see what Wayback currently has.

I am grateful for your answers

by **sharonl** 07.07.15 7:57

Putting aside all the technical analysis that many of us do not understand or have sufficient knowledge of, we have this post by Dr Martin Roberts which is much more understandable. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What do you make of this Tony?

by **Tony Bennett** 07.07.15 8:23

sharonl wrote:Putting aside all the technical analysis that many of us do not understand or have sufficient knowledge of, we have this post by Dr Martin Roberts which is much more understandable. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What do you make of this Tony?

I read this and Dr Martin Roberts' other article on the same subject a few days ago.

We now have an apparently irreconcilable conflict of opinion amongst experts on this subject.

Those who assert that the 30 April 'capture' by Wayback was a genuine capture of a dummy Madeleine McCann page being prepared on 30 April 2007 include:

Dr Martin Roberts
Richard D. Hall
Steve Marsden ('Stevo')
Resistor (from another place)
Hongkong Phooey (from another place)

Those who say it was a 'glitch' include:

Lizzy HideHo Taylor
Syn
Nuala
Blue Bag.

If we look at the poll here on CMOMM on Wayback, 16 out of the 42 who have voted say the arguments are too technical to comprehend, which leaves 26 who do have an opinion one way or another. At present,

17 agree with Dr Martin Roberts & co
7 agree with Lizzy Hideho Taylor & co, and
2 are unsure.

I think Nuala has, last night (and in previous posts), put up a credible argument that there was a massive 'glitch' on Wayback which caused literally hundreds, if not thousands, of searches of the CEOP website to send back a false 'crawl' date of 30 April 2007. (What I don't yet know is if there were any other massive Wayback glitches affecting either the CEOP or indeed any other websites for dates apart from 30 April 2007 - maybe someone can tell us?)

I am waiting to see if anyone who has a contrary argument can defeat Nuala's argument

by Mo 07.07.15 8:59

I don't think we will ever know the truth Tony because Wayback are now manipulating the pages so it's pointless looking at them - although I never did because I'm not technically minded. I have followed this from day one and can see three different camps.
1. Those with an open mind
2. Those who follow the Textusa theory - if the 30th April was correct it throws Textusa theory right out of the water.
3. Those who see the significance of the 30th - the avoidence of the Tapas group mentioning the Monday in their statements and Robert Murat flying to Portugal at short notice.
I personally have no theory on the matter but to say keep it simple!

by Angelique 07.07.15 9:05

I know absolutely nothing about IT I can't even run my Mac without help so this is only my opinion having read all the threads and "onlyinamerica" and the posts by Dr. Roberts who I have to say convinces me that something is wrong, but we don't know for sure what is wrong.

Is it possible that all the articles dated incorrectly were placed with the CEOP page to obscure/hide/camouflage it?

As far as I can tell once captured by the WBM it's there forever but if China can hack the Pentagon 14 times then anything can be hacked.

ETA Just to clarify I mean "as in if all those captures are wrong then so is the CEOP page for Missing Madeleine"

ETA My antenna is bleeping. If this page is real then this thing is huge!

by jozi 07.07.15 10:10

Angelique wrote:I know absolutely nothing about IT I can't even run my Mac without help so this is only my opinion having read all the threads and "onlyinamerica" and the posts by Dr. Roberts who I have to say convinces me that something is wrong, but we don't know for sure what is wrong.

Is it possible that all the articles dated incorrectly were placed with the CEOP page to obscure/hide/camouflage it?

As far as I can tell once captured by the WBM it's there forever but if China can hack the Pentagon 14 times then anything can be hacked.

ETA Just to clarify I mean "as in if all those captures are wrong then so is the CEOP page for Missing Madeleine"

I too feel like you so am following and not contributing as I am not techi either.....what I would like to know though if it is a glitch then why has it captured it on the 30th April (How can it put it into a file before it was ever on the net in the first place )???

What if somebody put the wrong date on the file knowing it would cause this or am I being realy blonde here ?!!!!!

by Mo 07.07.15 12:38

Those pesky guys at the Archive.org,things going along nicely then bam…. 30/04 the bonkers machine goes into overdrive eh!

28/04/07 Not much happening here then…….
[url=tel]20070428022938[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070428022942[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070428022946[/url] /(S(3k4fdc452q0j0xaffdjr0jaf))/ceop_report.aspx
[url=tel]20070428022950[/url] /(S(3k4fdc452q0j0xaffdjr0jaf))/images/reportnext.gif
[url=tel]20070428142006[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

29/04/07 Not much happening here then…….
[url=tel]20070429115020[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115032[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115048[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115048[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115049[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115049[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115051[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115051[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115052[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115053[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115109[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429141559[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429141600[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

30/04/07 at 11:58 03 3786 Urls (582 for ceop_report alone)

01/05/07 Not much happening here then……… (just over 15 hours later)
[url=tel]20070501151113[/url] /robots.txt
[url=tel]20070501151114[/url] /what_we_do.asp

02/05/07 Not much happening here then…….
[url=tel]20070502070550[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070502070606[/url] /get_advice_what_is_grooming.html
[url=tel]20070502191317[/url] /(S(2x40ol55kwvfjqaezv0noaes))/ceop_report.aspx
[url=tel]20070502191317[/url] /(S(jngw3t550tsn24f3qsh3pj45))/ceop_report.aspx
[url=tel]20070502195551[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070502195557[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Oh , and by the way Mr Butler, there were no crawls of Ceop on the 31/07/07 as claimed by your letter, here’s what the data said from a few days ago….

[url=tel]20070430115803[/url] /mccann.html
[url=tel]20070513020901[/url] /mccann.html
[url=tel]20070520033832[/url] /(S(ii5hcne2ycfqpq45bo0yzr55))/mccann.html
[url=tel]20070522035225[/url] /mccann.html
[url=tel]20070613040605[/url] /mccann.html
[url=tel]20070706183353[/url] /mccann.html
[url=tel]20070708201551[/url] /mccann.html
[url=tel]20070713232146[/url] /mccann.html
[url=tel]20070824232043[/url] /mccann.html

If someone could post on cmomm I'd be obliged (there is some rot getting discussed there at the moment)

Hongkong Phooey

The rot is the statements that 30/04 captures are all wrong, we don't know that, in fact because of the statements from archive.org I'd say the chances are that there are some correct URLs and some incorrect. Look at the data in the days surrounding, no errors as such, then look at the trend captures made on 30/04 in 2006, 2007 & 2008. Conclusion is there was a crawl made on 30/04/07
what exactly it captured is the debate, some say all data is invalid others like myself say no it's not. Looking at just pure data, something smells around mccann. html & madeleine 01 & 02 jpgs

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

Page 9 of 10 • [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 12345678910

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

by rustyjames 07.07.15 13:57

rustyjames wrote:
I don't believe that number of URLs were captured in a single second from a single site. To capture 3786 in 1 second then the average response time would be under 300 microseconds. To achieve that many you would have to have multiple servers with multiple threads all co-ordinated to go to ceop and the codexgeo site, (which has an even more extreme hit rate), at the same time. I'm certain WBM spreads the load, but I'm equally certain it doesn't work in such a co-ordinated fashion. I also highly doubt the ceop site, and even less so the codexgeo site, was sized to serve that many hits a second. There is then also the matter of the "captures" on that date containing references to news articles in the future.

I'm fairly sure it must be an indexing issue but I'm at a loss to explain what could have caused it, whether it is a fault, or maybe even a feature to place a "stake in the ground" at a point in time.

The CDX records provide a lot more detail, but they still don't show everything in the records. A key part of the index contain a link to the source .(w)arc file that contains the original data, and the offset in that file to locate the data, but the WBM API doesn't supply that information in the public API response. The content of those files I would believe a lot more trust in and I assume they must be written to sequentially.

@Tony - with regard to your question on glitch vs genuine......

Sorry to quote my own post, but from the above my view errs towards the info we are analysing being a "glitch". And it doesn't exist just for ceop.gov.uk; for codexgeo.co.uk, (a tiny former software solution company for Earth Sciences), it is even more extreme - 16033 entries in that 1 second window, (cf. worldwide Twitter currently handles around 6000 tweets a second or Google handles around 60,000 searches a second).

However the glitch is in the index which is all we have to analyse in detail - either directly, or via the resulting pages that WBM use it to serve up. We don't know how the index might have been modified and without the source data files that were indexed it's near impossible to make definitive statements - for example if we consider the index entry for a future news article to obviously be wrong, then there is no way we can make any assumptions about the mccann.html file unless it explicitly contained something that dated it as the news articles do.

Now if the additional index info, (that we are not party to), pointed to an .arc file, (that we are also not party to), that contained the mccann.html page's data, and that .arc file was from the 30th April and everything else in that file was contemporaneous, then that would be a very different matter, especially if things such as the news articles were also in appropriate source archive files.

I'm sure the Internet Archive could do all sorts of extra investigations, but as they make clear in some of the other comments posted in this thread, they are a small non-profit organisation whose focus is capturing and archiving electronic data for posterity, as so much information these days is transient, so as frustrating as it is I can fully understand their stance.

by Angelique 07.07.15 14:49

jozi wrote:
Angelique wrote:I know absolutely nothing about IT I can't even run my Mac without help so this is only my opinion having read all the threads and "onlyinamerica" and the posts by Dr. Roberts who I have to say convinces me that something is wrong, but we don't know for sure what is wrong.

Is it possible that all the articles dated incorrectly were placed with the CEOP page to obscure/hide/camouflage it?

As far as I can tell once captured by the WBM it's there forever but if China can hack the Pentagon 14 times then anything can be hacked.

ETA Just to clarify I mean "as in if all those captures are wrong then so is the CEOP page for Missing Madeleine"
I too feel like you so am following and not contributing as I am not techi either.....what I would like to know though if it is a glitch then why has it captured it on the 30th April (How can it put it into a file before it was ever on the net in the first place )???

What if somebody put the wrong date on the file knowing it would cause this or am I being realy blonde here ?!!!!!

Hi jozi

No I don't believe you are "being blonde" - I think this is also a possibility. In fact, I think this is what Textusa thinks too!

by Mo 07.07.15 16:47

HKP wrote:

Well just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water, splash!!!!!!
2007 certainly was a busy year for wayback / ceop 65% of all captures since 2005 were completed in 2007.

Anybody notice anything with these monthly captures? What happened in September I wonder!!!!!!

Jan 731
Feb 526
Mar 238
Apr 3936
May 461
Jun 698
July 689
Aug 1101
Sept 3657
Oct 896
Nov 40
Dec 163

What was that saying again about coincidences Kate?

If someone would do me the honour of posting on cmomm I'd be mighty greatful [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by whodunit 07.07.15 17:03

whodunit wrote:CEOP homepage capture April 27, 2007

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

mccann.html capture dated May 13, 2007

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

CEOP homepage capture May 14, 2007.^^^^

I'm not really sure what goes on with the index, but if I had to guess---perfectly permissible since Nuala is also guessing---I'd say that WBM tampering with and 're-indexing' the captures on this specific date over the last couple of weeks has caused it to go haywire.

What is not at issue, the thing that has not changed since this whole thing started is the embedded coding. If you dig around Steve Marsden's posts at FB you can find his downloaded coding for the original April 30 page that ignited this controversy. At the moment I cannot find it, but within that coding, under the 'Next/Previous Capture' heading you will find this text "You are Here: 11:58:03 April 30, 2007".

Now look at the caps I made of the same codes embedded in the pages that remain after the great re-shuffling. Both for the CEOP homepage and for mccann.html, April 30, 2007 is sitting right where you would expect to find it if the capture is true and correct. It is indeed the NEXT homepage capture after April 27 and the PREVIOUS capture to May 13. As for mccann.html, we find April 30, 2007 as the capture PREVIOUS to the extant May 14 capture.

If the April 30 capture is out of place in the contiguous sequences of captures you would expect to find evidence of this in the coding. We do not.

by HelenMeg 07.07.15 17:04

Angelique wrote:
jozi wrote:
Angelique wrote:I know absolutely nothing about IT I can't even run my Mac without help so this is only my opinion having read all the threads and "onlyinamerica" and the posts by Dr. Roberts who I have to say convinces me that something is wrong, but we don't know for sure what is wrong.

Is it possible that all the articles dated incorrectly were placed with the CEOP page to obscure/hide/camouflage it?

As far as I can tell once captured by the WBM it's there forever but if China can hack the Pentagon 14 times then anything can be hacked.

ETA Just to clarify I mean "as in if all those captures are wrong then so is the CEOP page for Missing Madeleine"
I too feel like you so am following and not contributing as I am not techi either.....what I would like to know though if it is a glitch then why has it captured it on the 30th April (How can it put it into a file before it was ever on the net in the first place )???

What if somebody put the wrong date on the file knowing it would cause this or am I being realy blonde here ?!!!!!
Hi jozi

No I don't believe you are "being blonde" - I think this is also a possibility. In fact, I think this is what Textusa thinks too!

I have said a number of times that I feel this could very well have been intended as a huge distraction - and it worked. Took us away from Amaral's fund and appeal and whatever else.
Team Mc Cann are well known for using distractions / red herrings / confusion

by cloak'ndagger 07.07.15 17:09

HelenMeg wrote:
Angelique wrote:
jozi wrote:
Angelique wrote:I know absolutely nothing about IT I can't even run my Mac without help so this is only my opinion having read all the threads and "onlyinamerica" and the posts by Dr. Roberts who I have to say convinces me that something is wrong, but we don't know for sure what is wrong.

Is it possible that all the articles dated incorrectly were placed with the CEOP page to obscure/hide/camouflage it?

As far as I can tell once captured by the WBM it's there forever but if China can hack the Pentagon 14 times then anything can be hacked.

ETA Just to clarify I mean "as in if all those captures are wrong then so is the CEOP page for Missing Madeleine"
I too feel like you so am following and not contributing as I am not techi either.....what I would like to know though if it is a glitch then why has it captured it on the 30th April (How can it put it into a file before it was ever on the net in the first place )???

What if somebody put the wrong date on the file knowing it would cause this or am I being realy blonde here ?!!!!!
Hi jozi

No I don't believe you are "being blonde" - I think this is also a possibility. In fact, I think this is what Textusa thinks too!
I have said a number of times that I feel this could very well have been intended as a huge distraction - and it worked. Took us away from Amaral's fund and appeal and whatever else.
Team Mc Cann are well known for using distractions / red herrings / confusion

Neither Steve Marsden or myself are connected to Team Mc Cann . Steve made this discovery when he was researching something else. .To suggest otherwise is in Clarrie's words ludicrous and unhelpful. I am sure Jill Havern will vouch for Steve as she has done elsewhere on this thread.

by jeanmonroe 07.07.15 17:25

And if you 'thought' a computer/crawly thing could 'capture' an 'event/page', say, on 29 October, 2013, and 'think' 'now, WHERE will i store/archive this'?

thinking

"Ah, i know, there's a folder/archive, dated 5th March, 2001, i'll 'stick' it THERE'!

Then THINK again, people!

Computers DO, what they are TOLD, programmed, to DO!

If a 'capture' is made on 7th September, 2009, then 'that' is put in the 7th September, 2009 'archive'

WHERE, we can 'find' it.

ps: I 'think' laughat

by whodunit 07.07.15 17:34

@HelenMeg---"I have said a number of times that I feel this could very well have been intended as a huge distraction - and it worked. Took us away from Amaral's fund and appeal and whatever else.
Team Mc Cann are well known for using distractions / red herrings / confusion"

I can't agree. Any discussion of evidence which supports an alternate view of the crime, one which severely contradicts the official pronouncements of TM, can only help Amaral. Discussions like these push the consensus among the general population to become more aligned with Mr. Amaral.

by Guest 07.07.15 17:36

cloak'ndagger wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
Angelique wrote:
jozi wrote:
Angelique wrote:I know absolutely nothing about IT I can't even run my Mac without help so this is only my opinion having read all the threads and "onlyinamerica" and the posts by Dr. Roberts who I have to say convinces me that something is wrong, but we don't know for sure what is wrong.

Is it possible that all the articles dated incorrectly were placed with the CEOP page to obscure/hide/camouflage it?

As far as I can tell once captured by the WBM it's there forever but if China can hack the Pentagon 14 times then anything can be hacked.

ETA Just to clarify I mean "as in if all those captures are wrong then so is the CEOP page for Missing Madeleine"
I too feel like you so am following and not contributing as I am not techi either.....what I would like to know though if it is a glitch then why has it captured it on the 30th April (How can it put it into a file before it was ever on the net in the first place )???

What if somebody put the wrong date on the file knowing it would cause this or am I being realy blonde here ?!!!!!
Hi jozi

No I don't believe you are "being blonde" - I think this is also a possibility. In fact, I think this is what Textusa thinks too!
I have said a number of times that I feel this could very well have been intended as a huge distraction - and it worked. Took us away from Amaral's fund and appeal and whatever else.
Team Mc Cann are well known for using distractions / red herrings / confusion
Neither Steve Marsden or myself are connected to Team Mc Cann . Steve made this discovery when he was researching something else. .To suggest otherwise is in Clarrie's words ludicrous and unhelpful. I am sure Jill Havern will vouch for Steve as she has done elsewhere on this thread.

Çloak'ndagger, are you a friend/acquainted/connected to S. Marsden? You did say recently that he would be posting here to explain a few things. Still no sign of him though.

by whodunit 07.07.15 17:37

@jeanmonroe--"If a 'capture' is made on 7th September, 2009, then 'that' is put in the 7th September, 2009 'archive'

WHERE, we can 'find' it. ps: I 'think"

Of course it does! Otherwise what is the point this archive?

by cloak'ndagger 07.07.15 17:55

Ladyinred wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
Angelique wrote:
jozi wrote:
Angelique wrote:I know absolutely nothing about IT I can't even run my Mac without help so this is only my opinion having read all the threads and "onlyinamerica" and the posts by Dr. Roberts who I have to say convinces me that something is wrong, but we don't know for sure what is wrong.

Is it possible that all the articles dated incorrectly were placed with the CEOP page to obscure/hide/camouflage it?

As far as I can tell once captured by the WBM it's there forever but if China can hack the Pentagon 14 times then anything can be hacked.

ETA Just to clarify I mean "as in if all those captures are wrong then so is the CEOP page for Missing Madeleine"
I too feel like you so am following and not contributing as I am not techi either.....what I would like to know though if it is a glitch then why has it captured it on the 30th April (How can it put it into a file before it was ever on the net in the first place )???

What if somebody put the wrong date on the file knowing it would cause this or am I being realy blonde here ?!!!!!
Hi jozi

No I don't believe you are "being blonde" - I think this is also a possibility. In fact, I think this is what Textusa thinks too!
I have said a number of times that I feel this could very well have been intended as a huge distraction - and it worked. Took us away from Amaral's fund and appeal and whatever else.
Team Mc Cann are well known for using distractions / red herrings / confusion
Neither Steve Marsden or myself are connected to Team Mc Cann . Steve made this discovery when he was researching something else. .To suggest otherwise is in Clarrie's words ludicrous and unhelpful. I am sure Jill Havern will vouch for Steve as she has done elsewhere on this thread.
Çloak'ndagger, are you a friend/acquainted/connected to S. Marsden? You did say recently that he would be posting here to explain a few things. Still no sign of him though.

Yes I am co admin with Steve. He has been too busy to post much . As far as he is concerned it is Q.E.D as regards the WBM capturing the CEOP on April30th .. I did think he would have something further to add but so far he does not appear to have. .

by suzysu 07.07.15 21:24

Is it over-simplifying the matter to suggest that the original search of the WBM was truthful ie there was a CEOP page captured on 30th April that showed MBM's disappearance, and that since then WBM has been busily - without any transparent explanation to suggest otherwise - obfuscating that record?

Or am I wrong?

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