Re: Claim by 'Stevo' - "CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007"

by **Richard D. Hall** 17.06.15 12:17

This looks very interesting.

I would say that it is not down to CEOP to say how the date could have been mistaken earlier on the web.archive.org website.

The people that need to be asked are web.archive.org. Their server cuts and pastes the websites of the internet and archives them on it's own servers. So only they can say if the date is real or could be different from the day the page was archive.

Does anyone know how to contact web.archive.org to put this query to them.

When I try and click on this it times out also. Therefore it may have been taken down?

I think it would be wise to ask a query of web.archive.org NOT in relation to Madeleine McCann, but as a general generic query about the date appearing on the archived page. Is it always the exact date the page was archived? - Can it vary? Why can it vary?

Asking CEOP is not going to get you a truthful answer.

by Rogue-a-Tory 17.06.15 12:19

Trouble with all these red herrings and hares running is that they give TM the perfect opportunity to discredit any evidence that goes against their version of events - no matter how strong or compelling that other evidence may be.

Sadly that process isn't a two way street as Zapata proved to be the case.

by **tigger** 17.06.15 12:24

The photograph isn't going to help find a 4 yr old if once again a much earlier photograph is used.
Even if the date is wrong, where did all these photographs come from and who made the choice as to which one to send/select?
Jon Corner sent photos and videos to the media on the night of 3/4 - later (I think a few days later) he opened a 'protocol' according to Kate which would enable press etc. to download photographs.

by Rogue-a-Tory 17.06.15 12:35

tigger wrote:The photograph isn't going to help find a 4 yr old if once again a much earlier photograph is used.
Even if the date is wrong, where did all these photographs come from and who made the choice as to which one to send/select?
Jon Corner sent photos and videos to the media on the night of 3/4 - later (I think a few days later) he opened a 'protocol' according to Kate which would enable press etc. to download photographs.

That's the salient point with all the photos used in the search. You'd wish to use the most recent one and of the holiday.

A picture of a girl from a room in Rothley Towers means nothing to someone that may have seen Madeleine in the Algarve during that fateful holiday. Yet one by the pool, on the beach or in the play area etc is much more likely to provoke a memory from a holidaymaker or a local.

The big question is did they have one, if not why not? If so why not use it?

by **tigger** 17.06.15 12:46

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
tigger wrote:The photograph isn't going to help find a 4 yr old if once again a much earlier photograph is used.
Even if the date is wrong, where did all these photographs come from and who made the choice as to which one to send/select?
Jon Corner sent photos and videos to the media on the night of 3/4 - later (I think a few days later) he opened a 'protocol' according to Kate which would enable press etc. to download photographs.
That's the salient point with all the photos used in the search. You'd wish to use the most recent one and of the holiday.

A picture of a girl from a room in Rothley Towers means nothing to someone that may have seen Madeleine in the Algarve during that fateful holiday. Yet one by the pool, on the beach or in the play area etc is much more likely to provoke a memory from a holidaymaker or a local.

The big question is did they have one, if not why not? If so why not use it?

I'm just wondering that the whole point of taking Maddie to PdL was to create a bunch of suitable photographs 'on location' so to speak. As there aren't any, not even the 'last one' imo it supports an unforeseen accident early in the week.

May also explain why tbe Donagal photos were released very early, at least some holiday snaps even if it wasn't PdL...

May also explain the triumphant 'last photo' which photo they say is their last memory of Maddie, not the actual child, just the picture.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.06.15 12:49

Richard D. Hall wrote:Asking CEOP is not going to get you a truthful answer.

It loooks like this debate has a long way to run.

Extraordinarily, people have taken to making donations to Goncalo Amaral on the GoFundMe site just to say whether the claims about the CEOP page being uploaded on 30 April are correct or not.

I think we are going to have a very robust debate between all the tecchies who claim to know about these things, while us uneductaed 'plebs' look on.

Apparently a donor to GoFundMe called 'IW' made a small donation to say that the Madeleine page was indeed uploaded (if that is the correct term) to the CEOP site on 30 April.

This what followed on GoFundMe:

£5
INCORRECT INFORMATION PREVIOUS POST BY 'IW'
Please note the information in previous post re Wayback Machine is incorrect. It really should be removed if possible asap. Thank you5

Then:

£5
INCORRECT INFORMATION POST BY 'IW'
Omitted to add, re Wayback Machine, correct date is 10.05.2007 @ 20.16 hrs. Thank you

Then IW came in again to correct his original mistake:

£5
I W
Please delete my previous comment as it is incorrect!!!!! Sorry!!!!!!

Then someone else has popped up in the last hour to say this on GoFundMe:

£5
Staying Anon This Time
I am staying anon this time as things are hotting up! Re: the 'IW' comment - seems correct to me so what's going on? Is the second 'IW', retracting the archived link to CEOP, the same person who posted the first comment? Just checked the link. The first dated 'snapshot' for MBM's disappearance on the CEOP website by this very large computerised archive is indeed the 30 April 2007 (time may be US at 11.58.03). As I understand it the archive automatically searches sites worldwide i.e. all carried out by a computer program not some fallible human . After the 30 April there are 2 more 'snapshots' of the CEOP page in May on the 13th and 22nd. I can see none for the 10 May and the calendar is clear - the snapshot dates are highlighted in light blue. The final snapshot date shown on the archive is 4 Sept 2009. I suspect the previous 2 comments refuting the evidence is a knee jerk panic reaction from some quarter. Please check the link for yourselves before it disappears into the ether. Seems really significant folks! This is what the archive states as part of its function: 'The Internet Archive is working to prevent the Internet - a new medium with major historical significance - and other "born-digital" materials from disappearing into the past. Collaborating with institutions including the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, we are working to preserve a record for generations to come.' Seems legit to me.

Meanwhile it has been fervently asserted elsewhere:

FILE ARCHIVED ON 11:58:03 Apr 30, 2007 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 10:35:10 Jun 17, 2015.
JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.

ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C. SECTION 108(a)(3)).

The full hierarchic name of the page contains a date - the first of May:

[url=http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_143454070346413&key=9aafeaa0dc973144cc8995b68291f36e&libId=ib0o8knb0100g3d9000DA17edw48k&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fmaddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk%2Ft800p30-ceop-show-maddie-is-missing-on-30th-april-2007&v=1&exp=53%3ACI1C54F%3A3&type=U&out=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20070501000000*%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fceop.gov.uk%2Fmccann.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fmaddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk%2Ft800p15-ceop-show-maddie-is-missing-on-30th-april-2007&title=CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007 - Page][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/url]

It looks like the snapshot was taken at 11:58:03 pm and written a couple of minutes later.

And this has appeared elsewhere:

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

...with a poster asking how something can be 'saved' that was (it is said) clearly uploaded on 30 April

+++++++++++++++++

I shall let the tecchies slug it out between themselves...and I very much doubt there will be agreement between them at the end of this raging debate

by **Richard D. Hall** 17.06.15 12:59

It needs a definitive statement from those who control the Wayback website. The computer code which retrieves web pages and then saves them is on their server. This code is usually not visible for the world to see, it is internal. So only people with access to that code who understand the code will be able to make an accurate statement on this.

by **Richard D. Hall** 17.06.15 13:06

In layman's terms if you want to know when a library first put a particular book on its shelves, the person who will know is the chief librarian, not the publisher of the book.

by Rufus T 17.06.15 13:21

macdonut wrote:This is a red herring I think guys. If you look at the full ceop page as allegedly archived on 30th April:

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

You'll see quite a number of news stories and links that are, in fact, dated in October 2007.

While I don't profess to understand how the web archive works, it clearly isn't accurate, at least on this occasion.

I agree it looks very much as though the screenshot was taken later in 2007 possibly at the end of October, but for some reason it has been incorrectly archived as 30th April.

by Joss 17.06.15 13:24

WHAT WAYBACK DOES

The Wayback Machine is a front end to the Internet Archive's collection of public Web pages. It includes more than 100 terabytes of date—a huge collection with huge storage requirements. The Wayback Machine provides access to this wealth of data by URLs. It is not text searchable—a user needs to know the exact URL of a particular Web page, or at least the Web site, to be able to enter the archive.

Upon entering an Internet address, the Wayback Machine presents a list of dates showing when that particular page has been archived. A check on the home page for the Library of Congress finds archived pages from November 9, 1996 through yesterday. There are far fewer pages in the 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 archives. In 2001, there was a copy from almost every other day.

Click on one of the displayed dates to see the archived page. The asterisk after some of the dates is used to designate when the Internet Archive detected a change in the page. So presumably, all those listings without an asterisk should be exactly the same as the first page before them that has an asterisk.

Note that the URL for the archived page begins with web.archive.org. Unlike the cached files at Google, the Wayback Machine also includes most image files in the archive. Thus, the images are not being drawn from a current server, but from the Internet Archive itself. This means that the archived page will display much more accurately how the page appeared on that particular date.

In addition, all the links on an archived page point not to the original linked location, but to other pages in the Internet Archive. So while the Wayback Machine is not searchable, it can be browsed. Find an archived page from 1997, click on any of the links on that page, and the Wayback Machine will take you to the closest (in terms of date) archive of the page available. In this way, a user can browse a Web site as it appeared within a certain time period.

The location of the Wayback Machine itself has shifted around among several URLs during its first few months.

Both [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] worked in the past, but at this point, they all redirect to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the home of the Internet Archive itself.

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

Re-formatted by a Mod

by whatsupdoc 17.06.15 13:25

Richard D. Hall wrote:This looks very interesting.

I would say that it is not down to CEOP to say how the date could have been mistaken earlier on the web.archive.org website.

The people that need to be asked are web.archive.org. Their server cuts and pastes the websites of the internet and archives them on it's own servers. So only they can say if the date is real or could be different from the day the page was archive.

Does anyone know how to contact web.archive.org to put this query to them.

When I try and click on this it times out also. Therefore it may have been taken down?

I think it would be wise to ask a query of web.archive.org NOT in relation to Madeleine McCann, but as a general generic query about the date appearing on the archived page. Is it always the exact date the page was archived? - Can it vary? Why can it vary?

Asking CEOP is not going to get you a truthful answer.

The site [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] .... Archive.org is UP and reachable says [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They don't have a tech help as they sound similar to a forumotion primary site for lots of others... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The 2 sites in question don't have the same URL...

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

This goes straight to a page showing CEOP but only 2007, 2008 and 2009.

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

This is the index page of ceop.

The [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has replaced [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the site's index page which is not valid if one types in this URL on it's own. So the site has been hacked/changed.

Both purport to show results for 30th April.

Some fiddling has taken place.

by Joss 17.06.15 13:35

2. The Internet Archive is a website that provides access to a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural
artifacts in digital form. Like a paper library, we provide free access to researchers, historians, scholars, and the general public. The Internet Archive has partnered with and receives support from various well-known institutions and libraries, including the Library of Congress.

3. The Internet Archive has created a service known as the Wayback Machine. The Wayback Machine makes it possible to surf more than 400 billion pages stored in the Internet Archive's web archive. Visitors to the Wayback Machine can search archives by URL (i.e., a website address). If archived records for a URL are available, the visitor will be presented with a list of available dates. The visitor may select one of those dates, and then begin surfing on an archived version of the Web. The links on the archived files, when served by the Wayback Machine, point to other archived files (whether HTML pages or images). If a visitor clicks on a link on an archived page, the Wayback Machine will serve the archived file with the closest available date to the page upon which the link appeared and was clicked.

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

by comperedna 17.06.15 14:06

I remember several other times when the date of a webpage, or a photograph appeared highly significant... but then it turned out that the date had been recorded incorrectly or something.... so I'm not getting too excited. HOWEVER... these pages surely are most interesting in their entirety. I agree we need some highly skilled techies to thoroughly sus them out. Is Marden he of 'Fake Abduction' book fame? I have that in my bottom drawer...

by Joss 17.06.15 14:34

comperedna wrote:I remember several other times when the date of a webpage, or a photograph appeared highly significant... but then it turned out that the date had been recorded incorrectly or something.... so I'm not getting too excited. HOWEVER... these pages surely are most interesting in their entirety. I agree we need some highly skilled techies to thoroughly sus them out. Is Marden he of 'Fake Abduction' book fame? I have that in my bottom drawer...

A Steve Marsden did write the book Faked Abduction, but don't know if he is the same person?

by LG 17.06.15 14:43

I believe that it is the same person.

by roy rovers 17.06.15 14:52

Joss wrote:2. The Internet Archive is a website that provides access to a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural
artifacts in digital form. Like a paper library, we provide free access to researchers, historians, scholars, and the general public. The Internet Archive has partnered with and receives support from various well-known institutions and libraries, including the Library of Congress.

3. The Internet Archive has created a service known as the Wayback Machine. The Wayback Machine makes it possible to surf more than 400 billion pages stored in the Internet Archive's web archive. Visitors to the Wayback Machine can search archives by URL (i.e., a website address). If archived records for a URL are available, the visitor will be presented with a list of available dates. The visitor may select one of those dates, and then begin surfing on an archived version of the Web. The links on the archived files, when served by the Wayback Machine, point to other archived files (whether HTML pages or images). If a visitor clicks on a link on an archived page, the Wayback Machine will serve the archived file with the closest available date to the page upon which the link appeared and was clicked.

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

Ha ha it would be good if it is true but as the saying goes 'if it seems too good to be true it probably isn't'. When you go to the archived web page it is a 'live' page with menus and linked pages etc so I imagine that the page in question is linking to pages in a date range that goes both backwards and forwards in time. The only way to be certain that the MM material was on the CEOPS website on 30 April 2007 would be if someone had made a screen grab ON THAT DAY.

by Joss 17.06.15 14:58

LG wrote:I believe that it is the same person.

Thanks.

by Joss 17.06.15 15:00

roy rovers wrote:
Joss wrote:2. The Internet Archive is a website that provides access to a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural
artifacts in digital form. Like a paper library, we provide free access to researchers, historians, scholars, and the general public. The Internet Archive has partnered with and receives support from various well-known institutions and libraries, including the Library of Congress.

3. The Internet Archive has created a service known as the Wayback Machine. The Wayback Machine makes it possible to surf more than 400 billion pages stored in the Internet Archive's web archive. Visitors to the Wayback Machine can search archives by URL (i.e., a website address). If archived records for a URL are available, the visitor will be presented with a list of available dates. The visitor may select one of those dates, and then begin surfing on an archived version of the Web. The links on the archived files, when served by the Wayback Machine, point to other archived files (whether HTML pages or images). If a visitor clicks on a link on an archived page, the Wayback Machine will serve the archived file with the closest available date to the page upon which the link appeared and was clicked.

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

Ha ha it would be good if it is true but as the saying goes 'if it seems too good to be true it probably is'. When you go to the archived web page it is a 'live' page with menus and linked pages etc so I imagine that the page in question is linking to pages in a date range that goes both backwards and forwards in time. The only way to be certain that the MM material was on the CEOPS website on 30 April 2007 would be if someone had made a screen grab ON THAT DAY.

I have no idea how it all works, just posted up what info. i found on it, but thanks for clarifying about it.

by j.rob 17.06.15 15:10

sallypelt wrote:I don't know if there is any truth in this, but if it turns out to be true, then it may explain Murat's sudden return to Portugal on 1st May 2007. It would also tie in with the "jemmied shutters" cock-up". Could this have been all planned, but it all went wrong when Jeremy Wilkins saw Gerry McCann fiddling with the shutters on the night of the 3rd of May?

I'll get my coat!

Murat's last minute flight booking is certainly suggestive that he was called in hastily to sort out the "world's biggest c*** up" and try to prevent too much fall out from "the disaster".

Jeremy Wilkins is certainly a key player, imo, and his "bumping into" Gerry at such a crucial place at such a crucial time cannot (if it took place at all or course) cannot be a coincidence.

IF it is true that they met intentionally at around 9.15pm on that fateful evening then what were they talking about? Most certainly not babysitting arrangements, imo. Something to do with a last-minute change of plan? Or did someone "bail out" of jemmying the shutters. Or maybe Jez deliberately scuppered something.

If it is not true that they met at that time and place that evening then why did Gerry claim they did? (Jez learns that Gerry says he bumped into Jez at 9.15pm only when Matt allegedly wakes him up in the company of OC resort manager in the early hours of Friday morning.)

Gerry trying to land Jez in it? And making sure that Jez is obliged to provide him with an alibi? Otherwise Gerry will expose Jez' role in the "mystery."

Or something like that. They both have dirt they can dish on each other, imo.

by j.rob 17.06.15 15:15

NickE wrote:This is an article from "PR Week" dated May 9, 2007.

"Mark Warner hires Bell Pottinger May 09, 2007

Mark Warner, the holiday company at the centre of the Portuguese kidnap story, is using the Bell Pottinger Group for help with the crisis.

Head of issues and crisis management Alex Woolfall is on location in Portugal and reports directly to MD *David Hopkins.

Mark Warner brought in Resonate on a generic brief a week before three-year-old Madeleine McCann was kidnapped from its Portuguese resort in Praia da Luz.

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

The McScam has all the hall-marks of a pre-arranged plan. One that got botched at the last minute, imo. So even if this date is found to be incorrect I still put my money on a giant hoax.

And CEOP is one dodgy organisation along with Missing. Jim Gamble hardly comes out of the whole sordid afffair smelling of roses.

by Cora 17.06.15 16:37

j.rob wrote:
NickE wrote:This is an article from "PR Week" dated May 9, 2007.

"Mark Warner hires Bell Pottinger May 09, 2007

Mark Warner, the holiday company at the centre of the Portuguese kidnap story, is using the Bell Pottinger Group for help with the crisis.

Head of issues and crisis management Alex Woolfall is on location in Portugal and reports directly to MD *David Hopkins.

Mark Warner brought in Resonate on a generic brief a week before three-year-old Madeleine McCann was kidnapped from its Portuguese resort in Praia da Luz.

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

The McScam has all the hall-marks of a pre-arranged plan. One that got botched at the last minute, imo. So even if this date is found to be incorrect I still put my money on a giant hoax.

And CEOP is one dodgy organisation along with Missing. Jim Gamble hardly comes out of the whole sordid afffair smelling of roses.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#

I agree with you. I have wavered from pity for the "poor grieving parents" to every other known theory there is out there, I don't know what it is (microchipping of children?) but I know the whole thing stinks to high heaven. How could two so called parents act the way they did especially at the beginning laughing and smirking like they had a secret joke?

And of course it was no surprise to hear Jim Gamble's name crop up again, he always seems to be lurking in the background, I remember him along with Mr McCann spouting his words of wisdom about Internet trolls and we all know what happened after that.

by **Richard D. Hall** 17.06.15 16:41

There is a way we can test this using my website.

Whenever I update my website I always post a link to the update on the bottom right corner under "Recent Updates". The date displayed here is ALWAYS the date I update the site.

So if we do some searches going back a few years on my site we should see these links with dates. The question is, will the archive date being displayed by the server be BEFORE the latest date on the "Recent Updates" or will it always be on or after the last update?

If we can run a few dozen tests this will give a good indication whether a page can be archived with an incorrect date.

I do not have access to the webarchive site because my router is blocking it. But can others please try this?

by MRNOODLES 17.06.15 17:34

Richard D. Hall wrote:There is a way we can test this using my website.

Whenever I update my website I always post a link to the update on the bottom right corner under "Recent Updates". The date displayed here is ALWAYS the date I update the site.

So if we do some searches going back a few years on my site we should see these links with dates. The question is, will the archive date being displayed by the server be BEFORE the latest date on the "Recent Updates" or will it always be on or after the last update?

If we can run a few dozen tests this will give a good indication whether a page can be archived with an incorrect date.

I do not have access to the webarchive site because my router is blocking it. But can others please try this?

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

Is this what you mean?

Archive 20th June 2013

But there's a film link dated the 21st.

by **Richard D. Hall** 17.06.15 17:39

Yes, we can see I updated the site on 20th June 2013, and the date archived is 20th June - NOT 3 days before!

The 21st date is the date when the TV show will be broadcast - not the site update date.

If you can do this for a few more we will see if the "archive date" can ever be BEFORE the date posted.

by **Richard D. Hall** 17.06.15 17:42

Ok Yes the TV B'cast date was the date it was to be broadcast on television. The date I update the site is on the right hand bottom panel "Recent Site Updates". These two dates are usually the same if the programme has not been broadcast on TV. The one to go by is "Recent Site Updates" - top link.