CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

Wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/http://ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html

...click 30 April 2007

Wikipedia:
Wayback Machine
The Wayback Machine is a digital archive of the World Wide Web and other information on the Internet created by the Internet Archive, a non-profit organization, based in San Francisco, California. It was set up by Brewster Kahle and Bruce Gilliat, and is maintained with content from Alexa Internet. The service enables users to see archived versions of web pages across time, which the Archive calls a "three dimensional index."...

http://truthformadeleine.com/2015/06/madeleine-officially-missing-on-april-30-2007/

... by the way...
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/landslide/2013-14/january-february/wayback_the_future.html

"...How Attorneys Use WBM and Applicable Legal Principles
WBM was not originally intended for legal use but has nevertheless found its way into the courtroom in many different contexts. WBM evidence is especially useful in patent litigation because prior art dates are important to validity challenges...."

If this is correct (which I don't doubt) it's very interesting. A comment has been left on gofundme this morning mentioning this information.

Twitters awash with this, may explain the bedside reading...
And what about "f##k off, I'm not here to enjoy myself?....
This is getting scary for me
IMO

This case still regularly amazes me but I find it hard to believe that this can be anything other than some kind of computer error. How could anybody involved in a conspiracy to fake a child abduction and conceal a death be foolish enough to announce it online three days before it was due to "happen"? Unless the intention was to pre-design the page ready to go live after the alert had been sounded?
I know nothing at all about web design, but is it possible that the Wayback machine dates a page from when it is first created, rather than when it is made available?
My feeling is that this can't be right, but I hope the police are aware of this anomaly, and I would like to understand the explanation for it – in the same way that I'd like to understand why - if sniffer dogs are so unreliable - they are only unreliable in relation to the same couple's property and are then able to go on and secure convictions for the FBI. (I often think that if the McCanns and their supporters could only address questions like this I could shut up and go away.)

Popcorn wrote:This case still regularly amazes me but I find it hard to believe that this can be anything other than some kind of computer error. How could anybody involved in a conspiracy to fake a child abduction and conceal a death be foolish enough to announce it online three days before it was due to "happen"? Unless the intention was to pre-design the page ready to go live after the alert had been sounded?
I know nothing at all about web design, but is it possible that the Wayback machine dates a page from when it is first created, rather than when it is made available?
My feeling is that this can't be right, but I hope the police are aware of this anomaly, and I would like to understand the explanation for it – in the same way that I'd like to understand why - if sniffer dogs are so unreliable - they are only unreliable in relation to the same couple's property and are then able to go on and secure convictions for the FBI. (I often think that if the McCanns and their supporters could only address questions like this I could shut up and go away.)

I agree Popcorn It seems strange that the type of people who are capable of carrying out such a hoax could make such an error. However, if it does prove to be true, it verifies what a lot of people think about pre planning.
Perhaps this was the date M was supposed to disappear.
I believe this was the intention as part of a sinister plot to instil fear in the population. A young child is kidnapped in broad daylight whilst in a safe holiday resort. Better get your children microchipped.
Maybe all the altered photos make sense now. The child who died never looked like that child in the photos so that may be why her body could not be found.
All the less believable "conspiracy" theories are starting to look more likely now. However I am remaining open minded until the wayback info can be verified.

No computer error, Popcorn -trust me, I know what I am talking about.

This is explosive stuff indeed and defies explanation. But somebody has A LOT of explaining to do....

If this is genuine, it has so many implications, I don't know where to start.

This destroys the theory that Madeleine died on the third of May and the events of that evening were cobbled together on the fly.

So perhaps Madeleine was supposed to "go missing" earlier in the week - I don't think so because it would have meant that K&G lost days of tennis & boozing (it was their holiday too!). It seems more likely to me that the poor child died on or before the 30th April and this was the start of getting everything into place.

Which begs the question: who did Mrs Fenn hear crying on the 1st May?

Deleted resistor, is there a link to this as fact, otherwise it is libellous?

But he's not as clever as he thinks he is, or he wouldn't keep getting found out!

Poe wrote:...Which begs the question: who did Mrs Fenn hear crying on the 1st May?

Just an idee/explanation:
... you can record the crying of a child ... a proof that she was a life....
...and explains to me why the crying stopped immediately when the door was opened (by the parents).
The tape was stopped...

I don´t know any child who stopped crying all of a sudden - even after crying for such a long time...
This was really strange to me!

Maybe this is totally nonsense but would explain a lot to me. Even now...

So this page is wrong according to this - I would go along with that....



JillyCL ‏@JillyCL  · 28 mins28 minutes ago  

JillyCL retweeted Ian Spence
Thanks Ian.  #McCann


JillyCL added,






Ian Spence @IanSpence6  
The web archive is wrong I'm afraid.  Look at the full ceop page for 30/4/07.  News items dated Oct 07.  Let's not pass this as fact #mccann

And this "Ian Spence" doesn't tell us WHY he thinks it is "wrong", does he?

The page was captured by a bot, with a timestamp. Bots do not make mistakes, they do EXACTLY as they are programmed to do, as this one has. This is what it found on 30th April 2007, just before midnight. If there are things on there dated October then that needs explaining as well. Maybe Sunny Jim is really Mystic Meg, I don't know, but that page is not "wrong".

Helene wrote:... by the way...
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/landslide/2013-14/january-february/wayback_the_future.html

"...How Attorneys Use WBM and Applicable Legal Principles
WBM was not originally intended for legal use but has nevertheless found its way into the courtroom in many different contexts. WBM evidence is especially useful in patent litigation because prior art dates are important to validity challenges...."

...if these records (of way back machine) are used and are valid in American courtrooms, I´m sure it´s true!!!!

Resistor wrote:And this "Ian Spence" doesn't tell us WHY he thinks it is "wrong", does  he?

The page was captured by a bot, with a timestamp.  Bots do not make mistakes, they do EXACTLY as they are programmed to do, as this one has.  This is what it found on 30th April 2007, just before midnight.  If there are things on there dated October then that needs explaining as well.  Maybe Sunny Jim is really Mystic Meg, I don't know, but that page is not "wrong".

I have seen on twitter people say it has been incorrect before. Anyway here is another tweet,


Ian Spence ‏@IanSpence6 · 8m8 minutes ago
@IWILLNOTGOAWAY I'm looking into that Deborah. It looks like the way it archives means later changes can find their way into earlier pages

Ian Spence ‏@IanSpence6 · 10 mins10 minutes ago
@__StuartB__ @JillyCL Go here Stuart: https://web.archive.org/web/20070430115803/http://ceop.gov.uk/ …

That makes zero sense at all. If a bot caches a page on an entirely different server from where it is originally hosted, then how does the "new" page get access to someone else's server, to make changes. I honestly don't see how that would work at all, and TBH it sounds like somebody is trying to make excuses.

I don't know anything about the 'wayback machine'. None the less - it's extremely interesting and absolute dynamite if it's 100% accurate.

Why has it took 8 plus years to come to light though....

http://truthformadeleine.com/2015/06/madeleine-officially-missing-on-april-30-2007/

If you look at this analysis, it seems to be true ...

My thoughts too Andrew.

I remember excitement about the Find Madeleine website having a copyright 2006 notice on some of its pages but for once, as Clarence would say, there was an innocent explanation for it.

Freedom wrote:My thoughts too Andrew.

I remember excitement about the Find Madeleine website having a copyright 2006 notice on some of its pages but for once, as Clarence would say, there was an innocent explanation for it.

That was because wee Callum used a template from Dreamweaver 4 - probably not even his own, but from school, as Dreamweaver is expensive stuff - and the default date was 2006. He was more than likely too lazy or careless to bother with small things like dates. Remember it also said "Sponsored by Infohost", sponsored my arse, Infohost were PAID, and very well paid too, for that pile of pants.

There's a lot of red herrings going around now about it being down to Javascript, that doesn't make any sense either. Javascript is an ELEMENT in a web page. It doesn't explain why a webpage entitled "http://ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html" even exists on 30th April, regardless of whether it has Javascript, Flash, animated gifs or anything else in it.

Andrew wrote:I don't know anything about the 'wayback machine'. None the less - it's extremely interesting and absolute dynamite if it's 100% accurate.

Why has it took 8 plus years to come to light though....

There are billions of webpages. It is the proverbial needle in a haystack.

Denise Thomson ‏@Syn0nymph · 16 mins16 minutes ago
@ChallengeGovUK No mystery why date 30/4/07. Is purely down to how WB handled javascript and links issues #mccann pic.twitter.com/DBzO3uhboJ

What do PDFs have to do with it? Sorry, not buying it at all.

Just posted on the Go Fund Me page. Let's hope that the last poster can elaborate his or her comment somewhere.

£5
INCORRECT INFORMATION PREVIOUS POST BY 'I W '
0 mins ago
Please note the information in previous post re Wayback Machine is incorrect. It really should be removed if possible asap. Thank you
55£10
I W
2 hours ago
The truths is coming out :-) CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007 !!! Wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/http://ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html ...click on 30 April 2007 For justice!!!