Sigh...

1. Introduction

Last year we interrupted our summer break 3 times with the following posts:

- “Outrageous” (02JUL14) in which we felt that we had to react to the farce that the July questionings done by PJ under SY request were;

- “No longer libel, so don’t call it libel” (18JUL14) because we had to clarify that the use “l” word was only favoured the other side as it was about damages and not libel (many disagreed with us then but time has proven us right);

- “Doomed pieces, emerging heroes” (15AUG14) because we felt we had to expose a manoeuvre from the other side which was the McCann v Murdoch libel trial.

But last year when we broke up for summer Maddie was one of the top issues on the news worldwide. SY had just put on that shameful show in Luz and Mr Amaral’s trial was finally being resumed after it was interrupted by the WoC question raised by the defence in January that year.

This year Maddie has become a non-issue.

Besides the 1st instance court sentence at the end of April, as of December last year the Maddie case has been subjected to a cloak of heavy silence.

Even so we have already interrupted our break once with our post “Playful molecules”. We did it because we had to show Establishment that using forensics to support the burglar thesis would be a very stupid move, not to say a useless and cumbersome one.

Now we are interrupting for the second time. Reason? Expose double standards among those who say are looking for the truth.


2. The Wayback Machine /WBM) CEOP Maddie webpage

We received the following comment:

“Anonymous 17 Jun 2015, 03:01:00

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=646163802184537&set=gm.917000191695416&type=1&theater

CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th april 2007”

The link led to the following picture:

It apparently showed that Madeleine McCann had been already reported missing on the CEOP website on April 30, 2007, 3 days before she was reported missing by her parents on May 3, 2007.

It seemed that Wayback Machine (archive.org) made a capture of that webpage on April 30, 2007.

This is how we responded:

“Textusa 17 Jun 2015, 08:04:00

Anonymous 17 Jun 2015, 03:01:00,

Thank you for the link.

One thing we don’t think is that our foes are stupid. It would be quite stupid for CEOP to put up Maddie as missing child as of April 30 and then go on defending she was abducted 3 days later.

There has to be a technical explanation. If there isn't one, all we can see is it to be bait for conspiracy theories and if it is, then some seem to be biting it.

Meanwhile, we think Nikki Plummer may have a reason:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1smn3f5”


3. Implications

Today, 16 days after this find and much discussion around it if we were asked to sum up in a sentence what we think about this subject we would save on words and use only one: sigh.

CEOP is an acronym that stands for Child Exploitation and Online Protection.

We would like to highlight 2 of those words: CHILD and ONLINE.

CEOP’s work is to target the most disgusting devious people on Earth who tirelessly educate themselves to not leave any sort of digital vestige.

Paedophiles know perfectly well how loathsome they are, they are fully aware that police computer experts are doing their best to find them so they will do whatever is possible to continue their horrid activity without being traced digitally.

We are sure that all technical personnel working at CEOP had and have outstanding computer qualifications so that any stealth digital activity doesn’t go unnoticed. Computers should hold very little or no mysteries to them.

The idea of CEOP having a page visible on the Internet on April 30 2007 advertising Maddie’s disappearance 3 days before the girl is said to have disappeared was announced to the world is just too far out there to contemplate.

Note that the webpage would have to be visible first so it would be archived.

Conceived, created, uploaded, published and only then archived.

One has to wonder when did Maddie really lose her life as on April 30 11:58:03 if there was already a government agency on board and had already put out a tangible product.

For it to have been published means there was a green light from someone to have it conceived, created, uploaded and published.

More than one person was then aware of this page. It was not a one-person operation. Many people, both in and outside CEOP, had to be involved in this process. For starters the person who decided to use CEOP. Not talking about Jim Gamble but about the person who had the power to involve him and the agency in this affair.

If, as it would be apparent if the date on the webpage was genuine, then there was a postponement of “Operation Maddie” to May 3, 2007 22:00:00.

That means there was a change of mind sometime on April 30, after the page was made visible. The page would have been published on that day allowing Wayback Machine (WBM) to capture it and only then postponement for May 3 would have been decided.

The question that MUST be asked is if whoever was deciding about what to do about Maddie’s death already had this level of cooperation and engagement from the UK government on April 30 why then go for the simulation of abduction thesis 3 days later?

Or to put in another way, why would the world ever need to know about Maddie, the girl with the coloboma?

With this level of government support Maddie’s body could easily have been taken very discreetly out of Portugal without even its authorities ever knowing what had happened in their territory. And with this level of government support even if they knew it wouldn’t represent a problem. Nothing a quick diplomatic intervention wouldn’t solve.

After all, it seems, they supposedly sat on this problem for almost 4 days so they had plenty of time to think and rethink and, for example, among many other things make up appropriate and not contradicting timelines and flawless booking sheets. And taken lots of pictures of their Tapas dinners as then they would have been real.

But after sitting for 4 days mulling over the subject of what to do, what do they decide to do? They decide to simulate an abduction in such a ridiculous way that it makes the absurd “Sharktopus vs. Pteracuda” seem credible. Does that make any sense? 

The fact that there was a simulated abduction shows very clearly that the decision to go for this scenario was one taken locally and under immense pressure, panic even. A decision discussed with little or even no coordination with anyone else outside the T9.

A decision taken on that evening shortly after realising the seriousness of the situation and most likely without involving anyone who wasn’t in PdL at the time.

Hastily arranged abduction scene, hastily written timelines, deleted phone calls, changed statements, glaringly obvious discrepancies none of which would have happened unless the abduction was decided in panic circumstances.

Only after the decision was taken and only after authorities had been called in - making it from then on impossible to backtrack - did those who decided realise the effective power they had supporting them.

In less than 24 hours the UK had deployed its ambassador to Luz and the mainstream media (power’s historic business partner) was already churning out news of abduction and only abduction.

But all this in our opinion happened after the alarm. When it was too late to correct all that had already been done in haste.

If Maddie had died all those days before May 3 wouldn’t common sense make those involved realise that the best option was discretion?

They had plenty of time to think about it. To realise that the best way to solve the very serious problem they had on their hands, knowing they had UK government support, would be to get professional risk management support who would coordinate all and have the body quickly and discreetly removed from site and no one would have known any better today.

If for nothing else, to make sure the whole thing would be dealt with at home where all involved could be best controlled and not unnecessarily involve any authorities from any other country.

Instead they created a webpage showing the intent of making the issue public. And after initially changing their minds about it, they went ahead with that disastrous decision anyway 3 days later.

The high level help they did get only came after the decision. alarm and calling of authorities and common sense tells us that if it had come before then all would have been done without major faults which was far from the case, as we know.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that the abduction simulation was the most idiotic option to follow, so if it was taken it was because that idea didn’t even get the chance to sink in or to be rationalised. It didn't have any possibility to mature inside the heads of those who took it.

To say Maddie was gone on April 30 at 12:00 and that it was decided to go for simulation of abduction on May 3 22:00 (more than 82 hours after) is to frankly call the UK government, the CEOP and Jim Gamble stupid.

And because they made a blunder of it, they were also incompetent and amateur.

Stupid, incompetent and amateur.

We know none of them are as 8 years and many million pounds of taxpayers money have clearly proven that.

For example, we think that CEOP has been unacceptably unethical about Ricardo Firmino by continuing to display picture of a child as missing on its “Missing Kids” webpage when it has been completely clarified by PJ that is NOT the case.

By doing so it has opened wide its doors to public criticism and to be seriously questioned as to what job it is really doing as from now on it is uncertain if the children listed there are really missing.

One can choose many adjectives to qualify an anti online child exploitation government agency exploiting online the image of a child but stupid, incompetent and amateur are none of them. As CEOP has been warned that Ricardo is not missing, we would maybe say arrogant and pompous showing how they can keep themselves aloof from the rest of us.

By the way, as a side note, we ask people who are writing various hypothesis about the WBM subject starting their texts with  a “if the page was indeed created on April 30 then...” to somewhere along the line explain what is their opinion if it wasn’t.

Otherwise the hypothesis becomes a certainty, a fact. To be a hypothesis means there are other possibilities that should also be considered and explored. If it’s a certainty the word if should not be used.

For example, we consider the reason for the date to have been a technical glitch, a programming error. If it wasn’t, meaning the page was indeed created on April 30 11:58:03, 3 days before Maddie officially disappeared then we consider that the UK government, the CEOP and Jim Gamble are as said above inconceivable stupid, unbelievable incompetent and unimaginably amateur and the cover-up we have witnessed for the past 8 years can only be to avoid the embarrassment to them that the exposure of such stupidity, such incompetence and such amateurism would cause.

We must wonder, if it was the case (which we stress we don’t think it was), how many hours in those 3 days that were to follow Maddie’s death without anyone doing anything did the British ambassador sat waiting in some room of his embassy for that phone call that would tell him he could finally head for Luz. Or was it because of his agenda the abduction was postponed 82 hours?

One thing is certain, the ambassador does not mention any waiting or any prior knowledge of Maddie’s death in his messages revealed by Wikileaks back in December 2010 on this subject. 


4. Conspiracy theorists

The WBM CEOP Maddie webpage has unquestionably been discussed.

On Forums and on Facebook where the issue was discussed. We have been watching attentively.

On JH Forum alone the subject reached at the time we're writing an amazing 170+ pages, 1,600+ replies.

It very quickly became a “techies” v “conspiracy theorists” debate. One of those we know will become another never ending myth spawning story.

Core conspiracy lovers desperately want it to be true whether it is or not.

As we said during our analysis on the Ocean Club booking sheets posts, computers do not make mistakes. They either work or they don’t.

If they do, they simply follow instructions (and do that with an amazing speed - that’s their added value) and it’s in this that mistakes exist. Instructions instructing wrongly, commonly known as computer glitches.

If a computer is instructed to capture a webpage and archive it, it’s logical to think the time allocated, or timestamp, when that is done is the moment in local time of when it is being archived. In fact it usually is.

But that recording process is but a set of instructions the computer is ordered to follow and the clock it is referring to when allocating the date is also just another set of instructions being likewise followed. 

Both sets of instructions are made up by humans and both subject to human error. Both subject to human intervention if there’s a will and the right expertise to go with it.

No, we don’t think in the WBM case there was any sort of human intervention. We believe in WBM when it says it’s an error and it will correct it. Just raising the possibility and showing how ridiculous it is to say that a computer programme cannot be altered. It can but it does need the right expertise, which may be very hard to have or to find.

The fact that WBM programmers are trying to fix the problem means the possibility of correction, or human intervention, exists:

The computer clock being wrong is very unlikely as it’s tested literally billions of times by the eyes of computer users every single day many times a day and so any and all possible errors in the instructions that make it appear before our eyes have been corrected by now and that gives the users the assurance that the time they're looking at is the correct one. 

We say the computer is correct when what we should be saying is that the instructions it is ordered to follow are correct.

However the same assurance we have about the clock doesn’t exist when it comes to the instructions of allocating a date to a file when archiving.

If the computer for some reason is ordered to assume that a certain file is to be dated Jan 1 1900, then that is the date that file will be allocated independent of computers not existing then. From that moment that date will be the one the computer returns whenever queried about it. No other, it knows no better.

It’s not the computer making the mistake but the instructions. The computer, we repeat, is always flawless even when following instructions that will make it return erroneous results.

Have we forgotten the Y2K hysteria when billions were spent because of the panic that computers wouldn’t be able to acknowledge files written before 2000 when the clock went over 1999? 

All those files people feared would no longer be accessible were they not created and did they not exist? They did and the possibility of a glitch making it impossible for the computer to access them did not alter that.

The problem was not of when the files were created but of not having the instructions in terms of time to enable the access. Once those appropriate instructions were introduced by human hand the problem was corrected.

The April 30 WBM Maddie webpage has all the elements for a good, juicy conspiracy theory. 

First of all, it involves a government agency and that gets any conspiracy theorist salivating.

Secondly it has a change of mind on the part of one of its participants, the WBM.

WBM first replied (in writing) that April 30 date was correct and then corrected its position (in writing) that the date was an error. 

Conspiracy theorists love these changes of heart. For them there’s no such thing as a correction. It’s always back pedalling due to pressure.

For them the only genuine information coming from WBM is the first mail. All other statements from WBM are suspicious. All according to them result from folding under pressure.

Thirdly because it involves a degree of technical knowledge very few have. 

Very few hold the “power of information” and the majority is unable to verify truthfulness of the information put out by self-proclaimed experts and much less contradict it. 

The arguments presented can be specious and even dishonest and there are no consequences as the debate will quickly run off into technical jargon making it impossible for the average person to follow it or even understand what is being discussed.

In the WBM case conspiracy theorists cling on to 2 pieces of arguable evidence, ignoring all other overwhelming circumstantial evidence, to formulate a thesis.

The first arguable evidence is the WBM capture itself as already shown in this post.

They say that if a chocolate company decided to stamp its bars with the date it was produced then one just has to look at the date a bar has been stamped with to be able determine without question the day it was produced.

Said like that it makes sense. 

But to say it like that either one is ignorant or is being specious, either way the best option would have been to not say anything.

If the chocolate company that stamps its bars with the date produces 100 chocolate bars a day and then one finds that there are 30,000 with the same day stamped then something is not right.

What is more likely to have happened is the dating machine being faulty or the company deciding to ridiculously alter its production output for just one day?

We won’t even go into the possibility of someone making chocolate bars today and stamping them intentionally with a date of years ago.

The second piece of arguable evidence is saying that the ONLY correct information is from the first mail sent by WBM. 

The fact that it is was followed by other mails recognising the error is disregarded. The fact there was a telephone conversation recognising the error also is.

For conspiracy theorists these matter little because they are evidently a backtracking on the part of WBM folding under the pressure of dark, evil powers.

What powers, one asks?

They seem to forget that WBM is based on the US and out of reach of any British influence and or threat.

WBM says this about the legal use of their product:

“The Internet Archive is a nonprofit organization dedicated to archiving the Internet and other digital materials, and providing public access to these records. We are not in the business of responding to requests for affidavits, or authenticating pages or other information from the Wayback Machine; this is why we make our collections available at no cost via our Web site, http://www.archive.org. As a nonprofit, our resources are limited, and these kinds of requests are a significant drain on our time and funds. Please remember that an affidavit from the Internet Archive may not be necessary.

Before asking the Internet Archive to authenticate your documents, we ask that you please seek judicial notice or simply ask your opposing party to stipulate to the documents' authenticity. Of course, the best source of such information is the party who posted the information on the URLs at issue, and the second-best source of such information is someone who actually accessed the historical versions of the URLs.

However, if you are determined to obtain an affidavit authenticating printouts from the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, we will do our best to help you in accordance with this policy.

To initiate your request, you must send us payment as described below and an electronic list of the extended URLs for each page you would like us to print out. By extended URL, we are referring to the full URL that appears in the Address field of your Web browser when you are looking at the page in question (e.g., http://web.archive.org/web/19970126045828/http://www.archive.org/). If you want more than one page from a particular domain, you must supply the extended URL for each page. Due to the undue burden on our limited resources, we cannot respond to requests for all linked pages at some particular domain. The list of extended URLs should be emailed to info at archive dot org. Please include your contact information in your email.

Our standard fee is $250 per request, plus $20 for each extended URL therein, excepting URLs that contain downloadable/printable files. Any such URLs (for example, .pdf, .doc, or .zip files) instead cost $30 per extended URL. The Internet Archive does not automatically notarize the affidavit. If you would like your affidavit notarized there is an additional $100 fee.”

That first mail is not an affidavit. Only affidavits have legal value and one from WBM costs money.

That mail has no legal value and is in our opinion just an automated response from WBM because “as a nonprofit, our resources are limited, and these kinds of requests are a significant drain on our time and funds”. 

They get queried from all over the world and apparently do not have time or resources to look at each request.

Only those requests that come back (with are you sure it is correct?) get duly analysed and will receive an answer along the lines of having revisited the issue we can now say that…

An innocuous and meaningless answer that will satisfy the simply curious. Simply being practical by placing a sort of filter on requests coming from all over the world on all possible topics.

Nothing sinister about this.

But could WBM be backtracking with the following mails to protect its reputation?

To make such a statement is ridiculous. WBM has a legal disclaimer and they are quite clear that only affidavits have legal values. WBM affidavits are what are used in court and not mails.

And even then WBM says if the dispute involves a date it’s the responsibility of the person wanting to prove the date was wrong/right to prove it, not WBM.

The mails recognising the error that followed that first one are basically WBM saying something like having revisited the issue we can now ask you not to ask for an affidavit on this subject because we won’t give you one, it’s an error.

The fact that PJ has shown no interest in this issue should also be further indication that all can be explained with technical reasons. Errors in programming are technical reasons as are programmes that don’t foresee certain eventualities which can’t be foreseen before the problem they cause pops up. 

The fact WBM has unilaterally ceased conversations on the WBM Maddie webpage (they will only talk to the police from now on) it’s not, in our opinion, because they have something to hide but simply because they have lost their patience. 

Maddie’s case has no importance for WBM as in the internet world - their world - it is not by far the only fish in the sea or the only pebble on the beach.

There’s only so many times one can say one is wrong and not be listened to.

Chance would have it that one April 30 defender was put in a situation that illustrates this to perfection.

HKP is a guest poster on Jill Havern Forum and a regular one at Madeleine McCann Mystery Forum on this one using his full nick, Hongkong Phooey.

On June 30 the internet debate around this subject was surprised by the following find:

The following URL appeared:

http://www.ceop.gov.uk/html/mccannhongkongphooey

First reaction was to think that HKP (Hongkong Phooey) was someone from CEOP infiltrated in the forums and that this find had outed him.

HKP immediately denied any wrongdoing. Why did he deny? Because he was innocent.

He had nothing to do with the appearance of that URL. The person who had stepped forward and recognised the deed. On June 30, another JH Forum poster, Syn, recognised having done it to prove a point in a technical discussion:

“I did it to prove a point to HPK that relying on the WB Source Directory is futile. He posted either here or on the other forum that he was convinced WB had now added http://www.ceop.gov.uk/html/mccann on 27 June 2015 and http://www.ceop.gov.uk.mccann on 17 June 2007. They hadn’t. Someone had simply typed in that url themselves either deliberately or by mistake and added it to the WBM but of course as neither exist they just redirect to www.ceop.police.uk

Anything can be added as I demonstrated by adding hongkongphooey to the archive saved on 27th June for http://www.ceop.gov.uk/html/mccann to create the one on 29th June 2015.” 

The question that has to be asked is if Syn had not come forward how many would have believed in HKP crying his innocence?

If Syn had not come forward HKP would still be denying it today. Over and over in the exact number of times he wouldn’t be believed.

HKP wouldn’t be believed in the exact same way as he, HKP, and others like him do not believe in WBM when they deny the date is correct.

We would like to highlight something present in this HKP episode and which we call the stupidity factor.

If HKP was a CEOP mole it would have been really stupid on his part to create something with the name “mccannhongkongphooey” on CEOP’s website .

We do not agree with HKP’s opinions but he has demonstrated quite clearly that he’s not stupid. It makes no sense for him to have created that URL.

That stupidity factor that exonerates HKP is the same one that should exonerate CEOP on the WBM webpage.

For us it’s very obvious it’s an error and we know those who have jumped on the conspiracy bandwagon can’t jump off without looking foolish.  

We would like to warn we won’t get into any technical debate about the WBM page, so comments of that nature will not be published.

We're fully aware that myths are always based on things that cannot be proved or disproved and people will always believe whatever they want to believe.

Some will persevere until the tip of their fingers wear out and continue to say there’s meat on the bone even if what still is there was glued on by them.

The point of this post is not about the WBM, however, the fact that it is being discussed (and how) elsewhere is.


5. Internet debate

But what we REALLY want to highlight today is that it was discussed. Really, really discussed.

Each one having the chance and TAKING IT to throw in their best arguments after doing proper research on the subject to defend their positions.

All parties taking nothing for granted, all parties exploring all possibilities even if minimal.

We were obviously very happy to see the issue debated.

We think it is a subject worthy of discussion because only through appropriate and respectful exchange of ideas can one come to substantiated conclusions.

The information is now available to readers and they can now to go through it all from both sides of the discussion and make up their own mind about it.

However, we must point out a sad note. Our opinion is that the debate was only reasonable up to a certain point and from then on has unfortunately resulted in the solidifying of the epithet of conspiracy theorists that the other side has tirelessly worked to give us all without success but now got a great push without making any effort.

Fortunately there are some sane people out there who put up a good fight.

One day it will dawn on some people that the sun rises not because it’s being pulled up by CIA or MI6 invisible strings under orders from lurking powers wanting us all to believe that the Earth is rotating when it's not. There is a sunrise every single day because our planet does effectively rotate on its axis.

But it's only our opinion and it is only worth what it is worth.

We support debate and there certainly was one around the WBM.

However what we can’t let pass by is the double standard we witnessed.

What we witnessed was people being passionate, really dedicated to investigation and getting deep into discussing the WBM while having dismissed as unimportant (or not even touched the subject) about the manipulation on the Ocean Club’s booking sheets and on the Mark Warner crèche sheets we exposed on various posts.

With WBM  they seemed to apply all their supposed computer expertise yet with the booking sheets the possibility of the use of OCR being the sole reason for the mistakes was brought up and apparently accepted without reservation.

Only that can justify the silence around the most likely manipulation of these documents handed over by both Ocean Club and Mark Warner to the PJ in the course of the investigation about Maddie’s disappearance.

It’s like when being presented 2 flowers, one yellow and one red to determine which one is a rose:

- with the yellow they stand their ground and not budge an inch about it being a rose just because they know that roses can be yellow and so take the discussion deep into the variances of tonality of that specific colour down to the minute differences of wavelengths between Yellow (CMYK) (process yellow) (canary yellow), Yellow (NCS) (psychological primary yellow), Yellow (Munsell), Yellow (Pantone), Yellow (Crayola), Unmellow yellow, Lemon, Mellow yellow, Royal yellow, Gold (golden), Cyber yellow, Safety yellow, Trombone yellow, Khaki, Goldenrod and Olive no matter how much the gardener responsible for the flower says it is not a rose.

- with the red flower they'll just say “Oh, that’s just a carnation, they're red, duh…” and be completely satisfied, plus, according to them a discussion not only is not needed as it's a waste of time no matter that the plain evidence showing it is a rose.

Why discuss the WBM webpage to exhaustion but look the other way when it comes to the booking sheets?

Maybe because one feeds conspiracy theory and helps accumulate clutter around the subject and so is eagerly fuelled while the other, because it proves the active participation of the resort in the cover-up, is disregarded, set aside, dropped like a stone.

One is worthy to be discussed, the other, apparently a complete waste of time to give it even another look.

One they want people to run circles around, the other they want it to be left alone, no attention called to it.


6. Booking sheets

When we said Smithman was Gerry McCann carrying a live child to be seen and so materialise the abductor, the subject was not discussed and where it was, it was ridiculed.

When we said there was no negligence, the subject was not discussed and where it was, it was ridiculed.

When we said there was no Big Round Table and so no Tapas dinners and that they only existed to justify a non-existing negligence, the subject was not discussed and where it was, it was ridiculed.

When we showed the involvement of others outside the T9 but present in Luz in the cover-up, the subject was not discussed and where it was, it was ridiculed.

The reader can easily note that whenever swinging is brought up as a possibility to be behind the cover up the subject is never discussed and where it is, it's ridiculed.

Maddie was killed in the UK, body brought to Luz, had a family lend her girl to pose as Maddie until alarm? Let’s discuss it.

Is Maddie buried under Murat’s drive way even though the property was searched to the inch? Let’s discuss it.

Was Maddie the victim of a paedo? Let’s discuss it (by the way, we DO agree with this discussion but all has to be discussed and nothing taken for granted).

Was Maddie killed before the 3rd and the group counted on no one being able to recognise Maddie's face after literally making it a worldwide icon? Let’s discuss it.

Did a family lend their daughter to impersonate Maddie for a whole week but after her disappearance was never again confused with her? Let's discuss it.

Was Maddie victim of a Satanic cult? Let’s discuss it.

Is the freemasonry the reason for the cover-up as in these things masonry is always involved? Let’s discuss it.

Have they built a house in Luz that looks like a bunker on the top of the hill so as to bury Maddie under it? Let’s discuss it.

Was Maddie a clone, a scientific experiment gone wrong? Let’s discuss it.

Did Maddie really exist? Let’s discuss it.

Was UK government involved via CEOP in Maddie’s demise 3 days before she disappeared? Let’s discuss it.

Was the cover-up all about protecting the reputation of those swinging there that week? Nah, that’s ridiculous, discussing it is a waste of time.

Let’s discuss every single STINK BOMBS (So Truth Is Not Known - Bring On More Barmy Stories) out there and the ones yet to be invented but not swinging. That would be a ridiculous waste of time.

We remind readers about what we have said about this: “Spectacular STINK BOMB are meant to be noticed, aimed to discredit all those interested in the truth about Maddie... To fatally wound the cause of searching for the truth as to what happened on that night.”

If the WBM CEOP Maddie webpage is not spectacular then we don’t know what the word means. Over 170+ pages of forum discussion show we do.

So when we published the posts about the booking sheets we did not expect them to be discussed as we're not expecting for that to happen with this post.

However, the fact that we remain faithful to the principle of what is known cannot be unknown makes us continue to write and so continue to walk our own path.

More than 1,500,000 hits says that we are not walking alone.

About the Ocean Club booking sheets, an instance where again the computer is blameless, we are not finished. We will be coming back to them with quite interesting finds. Of the reasonable kind, the kind people apparently prefer to pretend to ignore.


Post Scriptum: the fact that we have published on a Friday doesn’t mean we have returned from our summer break. It was just a coincidence.