Re: CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

Guest Sat 27 Jun 2015, 3:07 am

Yes, I am starting to like "whodunnit"'s way of thinking.

Andrew Sat 27 Jun 2015, 8:14 am

This 'whodunnit' chap or woman, has been leaving some comments on the M. Roberts blog.

Again, interesting reading.

Guest Sat 27 Jun 2015, 8:55 am

Blue Bag wrote: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.

Errr....yes, you do.

And you have yet to point out, with 100% certainty, that there was an error.

It may be your opinion that there might appear to be an error.

It's not mine, and a lot of other people too. So continuing to scream "error!" over and over, with zero proof, is destroying whatever little credibility you have left. Same goes for other posters on that thread, who keep re-posting the same screenshots with the same arguments; it's now degenerated into 102+ pages of playground bickering. Maybe that was the point.

Anyway, I won't be reading it again until somebody comes up with some sort of new content, and we can all move on.

**Freedom** Sat 27 Jun 2015, 9:30 am

Thank you Peter for your comment to BlueBag. It might be correct what he (?) says, who knows - certainly not me - but his attitude is very aggravating.

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

New post PeterMac Today at 9:11 am

BlueBag wrote:

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

____________________

PeterMac
Researcher

Posts: 9937
Join date: 2010-12-06

Dee Coy Sat 27 Jun 2015, 11:21 am

canada12 wrote:
Andrew wrote:God knows why I keep having a nosey in over the road. Well I do - because I find all this fascinating. Anyway....

Canada12 has just made a good post (hope she puts it here as well)

For an I.T thicko like myself - then it makes sense.

I think.

Thanks Andrew... Here's my point. I expect to be eviscerated shortly over there. Or completely ignored :-)

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

Spot on canada. This really is a case of KISS. I am becoming very wary of the wafflers who have appeared in other places just as this news broke spouting technical jargon in order to baffle and subdue, imo.

What is their motive after, as if by magic, they have suddenly appeared?

Dee Coy Sat 27 Jun 2015, 11:30 am

poster wrote:I think the photo that appears on the CEOP page that Wayback has a grab for with the date of 30th April 2007 is in this timeline. Sixth photo down. For some reason I can't copy and paste the photo on here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2007/05/10/madeleine_mccann_round_up_feature.shtml

I've been saying this about this picture since the WayBack revelation first appeared.

How come Ceop have this particular unreleased picture of Madeleine on 30 April, or, if that date is found to be incorrect, even in the early days of May? As far as I'm aware, it wasn't around then.

dogs don't lie Sat 27 Jun 2015, 11:37 am

Will they ever answer? Truthfully? Obviously, i can't believe JG whatever he says on this matter. If WB give an answer and says it was wrong, a whole can of whip ass will be opened up, if they say it's correct....
I really want to believe it was an error, but ATM there's nothing in the way of proof that it was, I just gotta sit back and see what comes of this and then maybe I'll have to rethink everything!

dogs don't lie Sat 27 Jun 2015, 11:54 am

Sorry, the pic didn't come, I'll try again.

'Notice' anything 'odd'?

'EXIF Information'

Date and time 22nd APRIL 2013.......10:15:21

THIS 'photo' of 'found' CRECHEMAN, by DCI Redwood, IO at OG, was his 'revelation moment/world exclusive' on CrimeWatch OCTOBER 14th 2013!

Would OG not get this out to the public asap?

dogs don't lie Sat 27 Jun 2015, 11:56 am

https://i.servimg.com/u/f18/18/18/19/63/creche10.jpg

chirpyinsect Sat 27 Jun 2015, 12:03 pm

Dee Coy wrote:
poster wrote:I think the photo that appears on the CEOP page that Wayback has a grab for with the date of 30th April 2007 is in this timeline. Sixth photo down. For some reason I can't copy and paste the photo on here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2007/05/10/madeleine_mccann_round_up_feature.shtml

I've been saying this about this picture since the WayBack revelation first appeared.

How come Ceop have this particular unreleased picture of Madeleine on 30 April, or, if that date is found to be incorrect, even in the early days of May? As far as I'm aware, it wasn't around then.

I have run this photo through a couple of reverse image sights, namely tineye and image raider and I cannot find mention of it being used before July 07 when Image raider shows it on Anorak's blog.

Guest Sat 27 Jun 2015, 12:05 pm

CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007 - Page 32 Creche10

I still think Crécheman is a complete work of fiction - by OG. Who on earth keeps the same clothes for 6 years? An adult, maybe; but kids' pyjamas?

Guest Sat 27 Jun 2015, 12:07 pm

chirpyinsect wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
poster wrote:I think the photo that appears on the CEOP page that Wayback has a grab for with the date of 30th April 2007 is in this timeline. Sixth photo down. For some reason I can't copy and paste the photo on here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2007/05/10/madeleine_mccann_round_up_feature.shtml

I've been saying this about this picture since the WayBack revelation first appeared.

How come Ceop have this particular unreleased picture of Madeleine on 30 April, or, if that date is found to be incorrect, even in the early days of May? As far as I'm aware, it wasn't around then.
I have run this photo through a couple of reverse image sights, namely tineye and image raider and I cannot find mention of it being used before July 07 when Image raider shows it on Anorak's blog.

Why was Jim Gamble up to his oxters in it so quickly, when Maddie (or a body) could have been found at any time?

Dee Coy Sat 27 Jun 2015, 12:08 pm

chirpyinsect wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
poster wrote:I think the photo that appears on the CEOP page that Wayback has a grab for with the date of 30th April 2007 is in this timeline. Sixth photo down. For some reason I can't copy and paste the photo on here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2007/05/10/madeleine_mccann_round_up_feature.shtml

I've been saying this about this picture since the WayBack revelation first appeared.

How come Ceop have this particular unreleased picture of Madeleine on 30 April, or, if that date is found to be incorrect, even in the early days of May? As far as I'm aware, it wasn't around then.
I have run this photo through a couple of reverse image sights, namely tineye and image raider and I cannot find mention of it being used before July 07 when Image raider shows it on Anorak's blog.

Thanks chirpy. That's exactly the information I was looking for. Smile

There are more ways than one to skin a cat, and if the waters can be muddied enough to put doubt on the 30 April date, then how that photo came to be in CEOP's possession certainly in early May if not 30 April is a question that will remain as needing an answer.

froggy Sat 27 Jun 2015, 12:30 pm

Resistor wrote:
chirpyinsect wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
poster wrote:I think the photo that appears on the CEOP page that Wayback has a grab for with the date of 30th April 2007 is in this timeline. Sixth photo down. For some reason I can't copy and paste the photo on here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2007/05/10/madeleine_mccann_round_up_feature.shtml

I've been saying this about this picture since the WayBack revelation first appeared.

How come Ceop have this particular unreleased picture of Madeleine on 30 April, or, if that date is found to be incorrect, even in the early days of May? As far as I'm aware, it wasn't around then.
I have run this photo through a couple of reverse image sights, namely tineye and image raider and I cannot find mention of it being used before July 07 when Image raider shows it on Anorak's blog.

Why was Jim Gamble up to his oxters in it so quickly, when Maddie (or a body) could have been found at any time?

There is the possibility that CEOP were running a covert operation ( these things are not unknown, particularly within the Met) that went very wrong and everything that has happened since has been damage limitation.

Dee Coy Sat 27 Jun 2015, 12:34 pm

I do wonder if you could be right, froggy. Would explain a lot.

chilli Sat 27 Jun 2015, 1:04 pm

Apologies as not directly on topic.

I'm not sure if this has been looked at before but while people are looking at files captured by the WBM, has anyone checked for when the earlist UK press reports were published as this has long been a source of discussion.

For years there have been people swearing they saw reports in online newspapers as early as midnight on 3rd May. I don't understand the technology (but enjoying the discussions) but would it be possible to identify what was on the frontpages of the first editions on the night of 3/4 May.

chirpyinsect Sat 27 Jun 2015, 1:09 pm

Dee Coy wrote:I do wonder if you could be right, froggy. Would explain a lot.

If this had been a covert operation to perhaps promote microchipping ( just an example ) would there not have been a more careful cover up.?
I am thinking this:
Let's say the parents were part of it from the start.( actors a la Sandy Hook ) . She accidentally dies but this cannot get out.
Why would there be any need to flag up a faked abduction? Surely TPTB would have whooshed the body, the parents go home with a borrowed child and a fake story invented in UK as to her death on home soil. Friendly doctor to sign death certificate of say an illness.
I actually favour the pre planned scenario but can't help feeling it would have been more professional if outside agencies were in on it.
ETA sorry a bit OT

Dee Coy Sat 27 Jun 2015, 1:21 pm

Crumbs. This all makes the ramblings of Cristobell's blog commenter seem a bit more logical.

Mimi Sat 27 Jun 2015, 1:29 pm

Sorry post deleted. This is not the section for theories and is an open thread. Also probably libellous - Admin

Guest Sat 27 Jun 2015, 1:37 pm

chirpyinsect wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:I do wonder if you could be right, froggy. Would explain a lot.
If this had been a covert operation to perhaps promote microchipping ( just an example ) would there not have been a more careful cover up.?
I am thinking this:
Let's say the parents were part of it from the start.( actors a la Sandy Hook ) . She accidentally dies but this cannot get out.
Why would there be any need to flag up a faked abduction? Surely TPTB would have whooshed the body, the parents go home with a borrowed child and a fake story invented in UK as to her death on home soil. Friendly doctor to sign death certificate of say an illness.
I actually favour the pre planned scenario but can't help feeling it would have been more professional if outside agencies were in on it.
ETA sorry a bit OT

Perhaps CEOP, if involved were doing a wild op type thing,if it went right then a lot of plaudits could be claimed,but something went amiss,with what it seems a lot of ass covering since.I wonder if Madeleine was told of such a thing that she had to leave mummy and daddy awhile went into a screaming hissy,what kid wouldn't,some one lashed out.Sorry OT,but if the belief in the wayback is correct then CEOP were involved.

Dee Coy Sat 27 Jun 2015, 1:40 pm

caricature wrote:
chirpyinsect wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:I do wonder if you could be right, froggy. Would explain a lot.
If this had been a covert operation to perhaps promote microchipping ( just an example ) would there not have been a more careful cover up.?
I am thinking this:
Let's say the parents were part of it from the start.( actors a la Sandy Hook ) . She accidentally dies but this cannot get out.
Why would there be any need to flag up a faked abduction? Surely TPTB would have whooshed the body, the parents go home with a borrowed child and a fake story invented in UK as to her death on home soil. Friendly doctor to sign death certificate of say an illness.
I actually favour the pre planned scenario but can't help feeling it would have been more professional if outside agencies were in on it.
ETA sorry a bit OT

Perhaps CEOP, if involved were doing a wild op type thing,if it went right then a lot of plaudits could be claimed,but something went amiss,with what it seems a lot of ass covering since.I wonder if Madeleine was told of such a thing that she had to leave mummy and daddy awhile went into a screaming hissy,what kid wouldn't,some one lashed out.Sorry OT,but if the belief in the waybcak is correct then CEOP were involved.

This is the crux of the matter, caricature.

If the 30 April is correct Jim and co are up to their necks in "it", whatever "it" is. In my opinion.

Guest Sat 27 Jun 2015, 1:49 pm

I haven't a clue on the wayback stuff its really interesting to read,but just say something went to court,you could have one expert on the prosecution saying its correct,another expert for the defence saying its incorrect,how would a jury decide?
The only way I can see is for CEOP to issue a statement,not going to happen though is it.

froggy Sat 27 Jun 2015, 2:05 pm

In pre social media days, a cover up may have worked very well, but much more difficult now that we have the internet.

Dee Coy Sat 27 Jun 2015, 2:28 pm

froggy wrote:In pre social media days, a cover up may have worked very well, but much more difficult now that we have the internet.

Yes, it really was unfortunate timing for the perpetrators that social media and the internet were accelerating exponentially since 2007. they could never have envisaged the amount of scrutiny and information-sharing that has happened. While I don't think this case will ever be 'allowed' to be solved, I don't think they will ever be able to stopper the genie back into the bottle either. Too much is out there.

I think it will run and run and we may eventually get to the truth under the Thirty-year rule.

costello Sat 27 Jun 2015, 2:33 pm

froggy wrote:In pre social media days, a cover up may have worked very well, but much more difficult now that we have the internet.

My thoughts exactly froggy, seems like all bases were covered at the time. I just wonder why no-one anticipated the power of the internet. Was this saga supposed to continue for all these years. I very much doubt it, maybe somebody thought they were infallible and became greedy. This has been my opinion for a while now.

Sponsored content