CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

Have posted the above over the road for you hth.

Yes HKP, if you have a specific page you do not want captured, you write your own robots.txt file listing the ones you want excluded. If your page is not on that list, it gets crawled. It's an opt-out sort of thing rather than an opt-in one.

Which indicates (to me, anyway) that mccann.html was indeed, a work in progress as of 30/04/07 and so nobody thought of, or got round to, sticking it in the robots.txt script.

I have still to see any positive proof that mccann.html was not crawled and captured on 30/04/07. All the arguments we have seen so far against this have been pure speculation, nothing more, with nothing to back them up.

Rufus T wrote:Have posted the above over the road for you hth.

Thanks, the weegies are not all bad (coming from an Edinburgh boy)

Resistor wrote:Yes HKP, if you have a specific page you do not want captured, you write your own robots.txt file listing the ones you want excluded.  If your page is not on that list, it gets crawled.  It's an opt-out sort of thing rather than an opt-in one.  

Which indicates (to me, anyway) that mccann.html was indeed, a work in progress as of 30/04/07 and so nobody thought of, or got round to, sticking it in the robots.txt script.

I have still to see any positive proof that mccann.html was not crawled and captured on 30/04/07.  All the arguments we have seen so far against this have been pure speculation, nothing more, with nothing to back them up.

Thanks, that explains it even better, I'm still in the camp of mccann. html was found on that date and nothing has been provided to say otherwise (Chris Butlers statements are not convincing in the least)

Just popping in to say well done everyone in trying to suss this one out, I've no idea but still following it blindly, can't wait for the here you go peeps, here's the evidence that it......
It takes this sort stripping it down to get to the truth.

@ HKP - Excuse my ignorance, but has the "editing" of your post on CMOMM altered much?

Also, I second ddl's post. I understand little but read all and try to absorb.

bluebell wrote:@  HKP    -   Excuse my ignorance, but has the "editing" of your post on CMOMM altered much?

Also, I second ddl's post.  I understand little but read all and try to absorb.        

The editing probably made it clearer, it's on the previous page here if you want to see the differences

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

bluebell wrote:@  HKP    -   Excuse my ignorance, but has the "editing" of your post on CMOMM altered much?

Also, I second ddl's post.  I understand little but read all and try to absorb.        

The editing probably made it clearer, it's on the previous page here if you want to see the differences

The finer details escape me HKP, I have read all the posts but I really am ignorant on this so just wanted it from 'the dog's mouth' as it were.

I just want to say THANK YOU, to all here who work with this very important issue,you are doing a great job for the truth.
Keep Up.

Welcome to our forum niklasericson

I read over the way that loads of stuff has been whooshed by the I.A regarding this... Is that right?

Obviously far too busy to check and look into it myself..

Andrew wrote:I read over the way that loads of stuff has been whooshed by the I.A regarding this... Is that right?

Obviously far too busy to check and look into it myself..

Loads of stuff was taken down when the 'issue' was first highlighted, what IA have done in the last few days is 'fix' the calendar, fix being them covering any tracks.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Andrew wrote:I read over the way that loads of stuff has been whooshed by the I.A regarding this... Is that right?

Obviously far too busy to check and look into it myself..

Loads of stuff was taken down when the 'issue' was first highlighted, what IA have done in the last few days is 'fix' the calendar, fix being them covering any tracks.

Thanks HKP.

Must of been some serious pressure put on them to now 'cover there tracks'.

Really is bizarre.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Andrew wrote:I read over the way that loads of stuff has been whooshed by the I.A regarding this... Is that right?

Obviously far too busy to check and look into it myself..

Loads of stuff was taken down when the 'issue' was first highlighted, what IA have done in the last few days is 'fix' the calendar, fix being them covering any tracks.

What is the point of that? Too many people have seen and saved it now.

They must assume it will all go away and get swept under the carpet then by 'fixing it'.

Bit like tearing up a gas bill on the hope they won't send another. 

Most odd indeed.

I would say that they are gambling (no pun intended) on the evidence being destroyed before the police have time to investigate.

Screen prints are all very well but useless alone (faked by trolls etc. etc. ) and WBM certainly aren't going to confirm their accuracy.

However, if the McCann page was investigated by the police prior to it being spread across the internet, then attempts to whoosh it now are too little too late.

Well that's the thing... I would of thought that SY/OG would have some specialists in the I.T stuff who would or should of come across 'this' a long time ago.

Although even if they did we wouldn't know about it.

Enough rope and all that......

Perhaps

Andrew wrote:Well that's the thing... I would of thought that SY/OG would have some specialists in the I.T stuff who would or should of come across 'this' a long time ago.

Although even if they did we wouldn't know about it.

Enough rope and all that......

Perhaps

Even if they did, they may have turned a blind eye to it. We have no real idea what their agenda might be, we just hope they are being honest.

So is this looking more likely to have been an error, with another site capturing 16000 with the same time and date stamp?

dogs don't lie wrote:So is this looking more likely to have been an error, with another site capturing 16000 with the same time and date stamp?

Seahorse found this site and there has been some analysis on the Only in America blog however it too has been whooshed and 'sorted' (by IA). No proof on that one either that a capture wasn't made 20070430115803 although over 16000 have been attributed to this timestamp, so I'm led to believe (haven't looked at this one myself).

If thats true then would it be safe to say an error? if all those were whooshed aswell?

dogs don't lie wrote:If thats true then would it be safe to say an error? if all those were whooshed aswell?

Obviously only IA can tell us what and why but if we look at Chris Butlers statement of what he says happened it still doesn't make sense.

He states mccann.html belongs in 31/07/07 however from the records that we have there were no captures of Ceop pages on that day. It should be noted that the downloaded data shows no captures from 21/07 to 31/07 although they may have been removed. Interestingly 08/07 is the first date when mccann.html, madeleine 01 & 02 jpg and the Madeleine posters are captured, why he didn't use this date I don't know.

For the Ceop home page he states 07/10/07 as the proper date however the page has a link to a news article dated 23/10/07 so how is that working out?

Darn,so we're back to confused.com!

Just seen this comment that my mate Jill posted.. 

A question left on CMOMM facebook group by Marian Greaves:

Can anybody tell me why the last photo, the one at the pool, that was in Kate's camera, but Gerry had to fly back to England to get it, was only released on 24th may, 3 weeks after she went missing, yet the CEOP pages picked up by Wayback archive had that photo loaded onto their page on 13th May?

... Is that right?

Andrew wrote:Just seen this comment that my mate Jill posted.. 

A question left on CMOMM facebook group by Marian Greaves:

Can anybody tell me why the last photo, the one at the pool, that was in Kate's camera, but Gerry had to fly back to England to get it, was only released on 24th may, 3 weeks after she went missing, yet the CEOP pages picked up by Wayback archive had that photo loaded onto their page on 13th May?

... Is that right?

Andrew Marian Greaves has corrected herself a post later, it is the tennis ball photo she is referring to. Bluebag has stated the BBC had shown the tennis photo on the 10th May and he has supplied a link. It seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding.