CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

chirpyinsect wrote:

Al Armed wrote:The tennis ball photo was madeleine_02.jpg. That's why it did not display in the April 30 capture. CEOP was just waiting for a suitable photo to name as madeleine_02.jpg.

And it had to be one they could claim to have been taken on the holiday.

Moreover, it makes no sense for it not to have displayed if the correct archive date really was May 13th or July 31st (as Chris Butler said in his 2nd email).

[quote="Don't Forget Madeleine"]

chirpyinsect wrote:

Al Armed wrote:The tennis ball photo was madeleine_02.jpg. That's why it did not display in the April 30 capture. CEOP was just waiting for a suitable photo to name as madeleine_02.jpg.

ETA:  I've found the relevant comments from Martin R's blog, you have to read down to the 1st July comments -

30 June 2015 at 17:48  

Martin Roberts said...
@Whodunnit 17.48

"Going over to check out the latest from HKP at CMOMM."

Where (on CMOMM) you will find an interesting letter from an IT professor in the USA.

Note the underlined passage, which refers to the primacy of a saved page.

In that context, it is worth bearing in mind, I think, that 'McCann.html' was a relatively simple construct, with a banner distinctively different from that of the home page. Significantly it included the words: 'Madeleine McCann', as confirmed within the code.

People can argue as much as they wish concerning the two picture elements involved, but this banner would be the first aspect put in place (the leading position of the relevant section of code confirms). The words are explicit text - they are not 'imported' (as are the image files), but written virtually ab initio.

Hence if, in the opinion of said expert, the dating of basic page coding is the most reliable aspect of the WBM process then the dating of a page shouting Madeleine McCann would should have been accurate.

Kind regards

Martin R.
30 June 2015 at 18:46  

 

What "banner" is Roberts referring to? Does he mean the H1 tag? A banner is generally understood to be a an advertising banner, in other words, an image (gif, jpeg, swf etc).

Nonetheless, the point that he is trying to make about original content and referred (linked) content is very valid.

You will have to ask Martin Roberts about the banner, but I think he makes it quite clear in the post you have copied above.

Could anybody explain why Madeleine being on the CEOP's website on the 30th April can be anything but a distraction and a red herring.

In May 2007 CEOP's only involvement with missing children concerned direct sexual exploitation by known offenders and child trafficking by known paedophiles.

Madeleine did not fit this profile, or did she?

For  CEOP's to be involved at such an early stage in a missing person enquiry was unique and would need the sanction of the Portuguese Police, the Chief Constable of the victims home Police force, Leicestershire and the Foreign and Home Office UK.

Did Jim Gamble have these permissions, or was he a rogue operator?

We already know that the Leicestershire Police were working in Portugal without the PJ's knowledge or permission to "assist" the Macs (whatever that means) and now we have the mystery of Jim Gamble.

Jim Gamble of CEOP's and the Leicestershire Police had a named suspect Robert Murat given to them on Sunday 6th May, which soon fitted the 'abductor' profile and what did they do about it?  

Nothing, sod all for another 9 days?

So you have either a complete dereliction of duty or both CEOP and the Leicestershire Police knew there was no point in looking for Madeleine.

There seems to be a concerted effort by the UK authorities to mislead the Portuguese Police at every turn.  Can there be a simple explanation?

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:You will have to ask Martin Roberts about the banner, but I think he makes it quite clear in the post you have copied above.

I am a big supporter of Martin Roberts, but, just for the sake of clarity, there is no Madeleine McCann banner on mccann.html. He is referring to the title tag or the H1 tag. My comment does not diminish his argument.

Al Armed wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:You will have to ask Martin Roberts about the banner, but I think he makes it quite clear in the post you have copied above.

I am a big supporter of Martin Roberts, but, just for the sake of clarity, there is no Madeleine McCann banner on mccann.html. He is referring to the title tag or the H1 tag. My comment does not diminish his argument.

Please ask him, not me, it's his blog after all.  It would have been easier for you to go direct to him in the first place if you want an answer if you're a big supporter of his or does he know who you are in a former life?

Al Armed wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:You will have to ask Martin Roberts about the banner, but I think he makes it quite clear in the post you have copied above.

I am a big supporter of Martin Roberts, but, just for the sake of clarity, there is no Madeleine McCann banner on mccann.html. He is referring to the title tag or the H1 tag. My comment does not diminish his argument.

Yes, I think he means section rather than banner.

The source code:

<div id="topWords">
<h1>Madeleine McCann</h1>
</div>

Where the 'div' tag applies to the 'Madeleine McCann' section.

"topWords" is the name of the CSS, which a.o. determines the green background colour of the section. The 'h1' tag determines the font/size/colour etc. of the text (and probably overrides anything in the CSS).

What "banner" is Roberts referring to? Does he mean the H1 tag? A banner is generally understood to be a an advertising banner, in other words, an image (gif, jpeg, swf etc).

Not if you're working in UNIX on an Apache server, then "banner" is actually a command. But I agree, he probably means the heading between the <h1> tags.

JJ wrote:Could anybody explain why Madeleine being on the CEOP's website on the 30th April can be anything but a distraction and a red herring.

In May 2007 CEOP's only involvement with missing children concerned direct sexual exploitation by known offenders and child trafficking by known paedophiles.

Madeleine did not fit this profile, or did she?

For  CEOP's to be involved at such an early stage in a missing person enquiry was unique and would need the sanction of the Portuguese Police, the Chief Constable of the victims home Police force, Leicestershire and the Foreign and Home Office UK.

Did Jim Gamble have these permissions, or was he a rogue operator?

We already know that the Leicestershire Police were working in Portugal without the PJ's knowledge or permission to "assist" the Macs (whatever that means) and now we have the mystery of Jim Gamble.

Jim Gamble of CEOP's and the Leicestershire Police had a named suspect Robert Murat given to them on Sunday 6th May, which soon fitted the 'abductor' profile and what did they do about it?  

Nothing, sod all for another 9 days?

So you have either a complete dereliction of duty or both CEOP and the Leicestershire Police knew there was no point in looking for Madeleine.

There seems to be a concerted effort by the UK authorities to mislead the Portuguese Police at every turn.  Can there be a simple explanation?

The fact that there were empty CATS files can't be overlooked.  As someone said on this blog or CMoMM a long time ago who apparently worked for the police, why open CATS files if nothing was put in them.  There would be hundreds of thousands of those files sitting around in UK police bureaus if CATS files were opened for no reason with no information in them.

It there was information in those CATS files who's holding it and why?

JJ wrote:Could anybody explain why Madeleine being on the CEOP's website on the 30th April can be anything but a distraction and a red herring.

In May 2007 CEOP's only involvement with missing children concerned direct sexual exploitation by known offenders and child trafficking by known paedophiles.

Madeleine did not fit this profile, or did she?

For  CEOP's to be involved at such an early stage in a missing person enquiry was unique and would need the sanction of the Portuguese Police, the Chief Constable of the victims home Police force, Leicestershire and the Foreign and Home Office UK.

Did Jim Gamble have these permissions, or was he a rogue operator?

We already know that the Leicestershire Police were working in Portugal without the PJ's knowledge or permission to "assist" the Macs (whatever that means) and now we have the mystery of Jim Gamble.

Jim Gamble of CEOP's and the Leicestershire Police had a named suspect Robert Murat given to them on Sunday 6th May, which soon fitted the 'abductor' profile and what did they do about it?  

Nothing, sod all for another 9 days?

So you have either a complete dereliction of duty or both CEOP and the Leicestershire Police knew there was no point in looking for Madeleine.

There seems to be a concerted effort by the UK authorities to mislead the Portuguese Police at every turn.  Can there be a simple explanation?

Now that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

froggy wrote:

JJ wrote:Could anybody explain why Madeleine being on the CEOP's website on the 30th April can be anything but a distraction and a red herring.

In May 2007 CEOP's only involvement with missing children concerned direct sexual exploitation by known offenders and child trafficking by known paedophiles.

Madeleine did not fit this profile, or did she?

For  CEOP's to be involved at such an early stage in a missing person enquiry was unique and would need the sanction of the Portuguese Police, the Chief Constable of the victims home Police force, Leicestershire and the Foreign and Home Office UK.

Did Jim Gamble have these permissions, or was he a rogue operator?

We already know that the Leicestershire Police were working in Portugal without the PJ's knowledge or permission to "assist" the Macs (whatever that means) and now we have the mystery of Jim Gamble.

Jim Gamble of CEOP's and the Leicestershire Police had a named suspect Robert Murat given to them on Sunday 6th May, which soon fitted the 'abductor' profile and what did they do about it?  

Nothing, sod all for another 9 days?

So you have either a complete dereliction of duty or both CEOP and the Leicestershire Police knew there was no point in looking for Madeleine.

There seems to be a concerted effort by the UK authorities to mislead the Portuguese Police at every turn.  Can there be a simple explanation?

Now that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Why would Jim Gamble be supporting the McCanns and won't have a bad word said against them, he doesn't have a clue like the rest of us whether Madeleine was abducted or not only by what he was told by the McCanns, or does he know otherwise. There must be some link between him and them that he would put his reputation on the line for them.

As someone posted yesterday to suggest anything would be libelous so I will keep my thoughts to myself.

Seahorse, just to clarify:

"topWords" is the name of the CSS, which a.o. determines the green background colour of the section. The 'h1' tag determines the font/size/colour etc. of the text (and probably overrides anything in the CSS).

"topWords" is actually the words used for Google and the other search engines, not the CSS. The important words are then covered by the h1 tag.

Note that Dr Roberts says this, and I'm not aiming this at you, it wasn't you who quoted him, but just adding to this post as it's easier:

People can argue as much as they wish concerning the two picture elements involved, but this banner would be the first aspect put in place (the leading position of the relevant section of code confirms). The words are explicit text - they are not 'imported' (as are the image files), but written virtually ab initio.

It's called moving the goal posts. Dr Roberts was intent on the two Madeleine JPGs proving his point, and concentrated on them. Now they've been disproved as being dated 30 Apr 2007, he's moved to the "banner" without even knowing what it is.

It's the same as when he said originally that the alt tag for the second Madeleine photo was a link to the photo, which is wasn't. When that was pointed out he has to shift his argument again.

He's basing his arguments on incorrect assumptions because he doesn't actually know.

Excuse me? Where and when were the two pictures "disproved" as being dated 30/4/07?

Just to continue from what I was saying before . . . .

If I consulted a doctor about some ailment and unknown to me he was actually unqualified, and he made a diagnosis based on what he thought was wrong with me, I wouldn't be too happy. I don't think anyone would.

So when someone says an alt tag is a link and an h1 tag is a banner they are assuming a knowledge they clearly don't have. Indeed they are demonstrating they don't actually know what they're talking about.

I wouldn't want that person to be diagnosing me

Nuala wrote:Seahorse, just to clarify:

"topWords" is the name of the CSS, which a.o. determines the green background colour of the section. The 'h1' tag determines the font/size/colour etc. of the text (and probably overrides anything in the CSS).

"topWords" is actually the words used for Google and the other search engines, not the CSS. The important words are then covered by the h1 tag.

Sorry to be pedantic Nuala, but "topWords" has nothing to do with Google. It is the name of the unique class (hence div id="topWords" and not div class="topWords") being applied to the H1 tag. As you know, this will be defined in the CSS.


However, the H1 tag, which can also be styled in the CSS, is most definitely there for SEO purposes. In fact, it is the only real SEO element in the page, as there are no Description or Keywords meta tags there.

Nuala wrote:Just to continue from what I was saying before . . . .

If I consulted a doctor about some ailment and unknown to me he was actually unqualified, and he made a diagnosis based on what he thought was wrong with me, I wouldn't be too happy. I don't think anyone would.

So when someone says an alt tag is a link and an h1 tag is a banner they are assuming a knowledge they clearly don't have. Indeed they are demonstrating they don't actually know what they're talking about.

I wouldn't want that person to be diagnosing me

And when someone stamps in here shouting as fact that something has been "disproved", when it has been nothing of the sort, it makes me wonder why the hell they are here at all.

Nuala wrote:Seahorse, just to clarify:

"topWords" is the name of the CSS, which a.o. determines the green background colour of the section. The 'h1' tag determines the font/size/colour etc. of the text (and probably overrides anything in the CSS).

"topWords" is actually the words used for Google and the other search engines, not the CSS. The important words are then covered by the h1 tag.

Note that Dr Roberts says this, and I'm not aiming this at you, it wasn't you who quoted him, but just adding to this post as it's easier:

People can argue as much as they wish concerning the two picture elements involved, but this banner would be the first aspect put in place (the leading position of the relevant section of code confirms). The words are explicit text - they are not 'imported' (as are the image files), but written virtually ab initio.

It's called moving the goal posts. Dr Roberts was intent on the two Madeleine JPGs proving his point, and concentrated on them. Now they've been disproved as being dated 30 Apr 2007, he's moved to the "banner" without even knowing what it is.

It's the same as when he said originally that the alt tag for the second Madeleine photo was a link to the photo, which is wasn't. When that was pointed out he has to shift his argument again.

He's basing his arguments on incorrect assumptions because he doesn't actually know.

Would you be so kind and bring the evidence of the Madeleine jpg's being disproved to this thread I (and probably others) have not seen anything of the sorts.
Thanks

On Facebook Abduction or scam Stevo has posted that he has the root of the ceop page in question. I clicked download and got the file which is zipped. It then gave me an option to extract ceop 30 apr 07 . However I am on a tablet and it does say that the file cant be extracted as it is in use in the destination folder.
Anyhoo no matter as I wouldn't have a clue but just thought Resistor or HKP might want to look at it.

Chirpy, is that mccann.html or the home page? I already have the source for mccann, it's the source for the homepage with the October news items in it that I'd really like to see. Although at this stage, I'm not exactly sure how it would help.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Nuala wrote:Seahorse, just to clarify:

"topWords" is the name of the CSS, which a.o. determines the green background colour of the section. The 'h1' tag determines the font/size/colour etc. of the text (and probably overrides anything in the CSS).

"topWords" is actually the words used for Google and the other search engines, not the CSS. The important words are then covered by the h1 tag.

Note that Dr Roberts says this, and I'm not aiming this at you, it wasn't you who quoted him, but just adding to this post as it's easier:

People can argue as much as they wish concerning the two picture elements involved, but this banner would be the first aspect put in place (the leading position of the relevant section of code confirms). The words are explicit text - they are not 'imported' (as are the image files), but written virtually ab initio.

It's called moving the goal posts. Dr Roberts was intent on the two Madeleine JPGs proving his point, and concentrated on them. Now they've been disproved as being dated 30 Apr 2007, he's moved to the "banner" without even knowing what it is.

It's the same as when he said originally that the alt tag for the second Madeleine photo was a link to the photo, which is wasn't. When that was pointed out he has to shift his argument again.

He's basing his arguments on incorrect assumptions because he doesn't actually know.

Would you be so kind and bring the evidence of the Madeleine jpg's being disproved to this thread I (and probably others) have not seen anything of the sorts.
Thanks

Don't hold your breath. Nuala never justifies their assertions with evidence nor have they explained where their "expertise" comes from. Don't forget this is the same person that, last time they were here, repeatedly stated as fact that all web crawlers could only ever find linked pages despite being given proof that this is not the case.

Resistor wrote:Chirpy, is that mccann.html or the home page?  I already have the source for mccann, it's the source for the homepage with the October news items in it that I'd really like to see.  Although at this stage, I'm not exactly sure how it would help.

I think it is deffo the Mccann one.

AndyB wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Nuala wrote:Seahorse, just to clarify:

"topWords" is the name of the CSS, which a.o. determines the green background colour of the section. The 'h1' tag determines the font/size/colour etc. of the text (and probably overrides anything in the CSS).

"topWords" is actually the words used for Google and the other search engines, not the CSS. The important words are then covered by the h1 tag.

Note that Dr Roberts says this, and I'm not aiming this at you, it wasn't you who quoted him, but just adding to this post as it's easier:

People can argue as much as they wish concerning the two picture elements involved, but this banner would be the first aspect put in place (the leading position of the relevant section of code confirms). The words are explicit text - they are not 'imported' (as are the image files), but written virtually ab initio.

It's called moving the goal posts. Dr Roberts was intent on the two Madeleine JPGs proving his point, and concentrated on them. Now they've been disproved as being dated 30 Apr 2007, he's moved to the "banner" without even knowing what it is.

It's the same as when he said originally that the alt tag for the second Madeleine photo was a link to the photo, which is wasn't. When that was pointed out he has to shift his argument again.

He's basing his arguments on incorrect assumptions because he doesn't actually know.

Would you be so kind and bring the evidence of the Madeleine jpg's being disproved to this thread I (and probably others) have not seen anything of the sorts.
Thanks

Don't hold your breath. Nuala never justifies their assertions with evidence nor have they explained where their "expertise" comes from. Don't forget this is the same person that, last time they were here, repeatedly stated as fact that all web crawlers could only ever find linked pages despite being given proof that this is not the case.

And seemed to think that it was okay to post utter rubbish on the grounds that "non techies" would be unable to tell the difference.

The threads on CMoMM have descended into ruin thanks to her little tag-team with Syn and Siobhan (?) all constantly praising each other and patting each other on the back, but actually bringing zero to the table.

Having been subjected to a load of waffle and subterfuge I though I'd look at the WBM before and after 30/04/07. Data taken from the Dr Roberts link.

You know the mccanns must be the unluckiest people in the world, consider this; the Wayback machine is functioning perfectly normally in the month of April 07 (CNN, Amazon, Yahoo & New York Times all captured ok on 30/04/07) it captures information like this:-

From ceop dowload........

01/04/07               6 urls are captured
03/04/07               2 urls are captured (03/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2008)
28/04/07               1 urls are captured

Then this happens…..

30/04/07               3015 urls captured (30/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2008)

What’s happened here then looks like Wayback has gone bonkers…….

Or maybe not……

10/05/07               36 urls are captured
12/05/07               50 urls are captured
13/05/07               20 urls are captured
14/05/07               49 urls are captured (30/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2007 & 2011)
15/05/07               11 urls are captured
16/05/07               13 urls are captured
17/05/07               4 urls are captured (17/05 date also appears in 2006)
19/05/07               3 urls are captured
20/05/07               9 urls are captured
22/05/07               37 urls are captured
23/05/07               3 urls are captured
24/05/07               21 urls are captured
25/05/07               3 urls are captured
26/05/07               3 urls are captured
27/05/07               1 urls are captured
29/05/07               1 urls are captured (29/05 date also appears in 2006 & 2009 & 2010)

Seems to be quite a number of crawls in May 07 (16) none of them getting anywhere near the volume of 30/04/07 but it must have spectacularly gone wrong (on what appears to be just the ceop site) on one of the very days that the McCanns  would want to not draw any attention to.

Cracking work HKP. You're like a (super) dog with a bone. Excellent stuff.

As an aside - Jim Gamble is very quiet at the moment. Well for someone who usually spends his life, day and night, on Twitter.

Maybe he's not feeling very well at this moment in time....

[quote="Andrew"]Cracking work HKP. You're like a (super) dog with a bone. Excellent stuff.


Very true words spoken there, Andrew!
HKP looks like he kicks ass, I'm more laid back and chilled out, but hey, I can dance, I'm somewhere dancing on here too all thanks to a member! (OT sorry!)