Re: Claim by 'Stevo' - "CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007"

by Guest 21.06.15 8:32

Syn wrote:Thanks to those who have vouched for me :) Have a lovely day all :)

Own up to the fact you were talking out your backside yesterday and all will be forgiven.

by aiyoyo 21.06.15 8:41

BlueBag wrote:Just the disruptive ones and the ones on a mission to put us right about a hot issue.

Isn't that subjective? And down to perception?

How do we differentiate the disruptive from non-disruptive ones?

Isn't it best to ignore them and they will be left talking to themselves? Why drive them away? So long as no one engages with them, it's rather amusing to watch the disruptive ones trip up.

by whatsupdoc 21.06.15 8:57

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I've been checking the mccann.html files on WBM and if you try 30th April and the 1st May links including an * after the date/time stamp you get the calendar and can see the 30th and the 1st snapshot dates, Clicking on either will bring up a pic of Madeleine but the date on the top has been changed to 13th May.

The link for YouTube around midday on the 30th April is still there and showing 30th April when the snapshot is clicked on. All working, no problems.

So other sites such as YouTube are working on 30th April around 1200 on WBM ...just the mccann.html file causing a problem....AFAIK

I don't think a glitch covers an event such as making a file entry days before it has supposedly occured.

by Guest 21.06.15 8:57

aiyoyo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Just the disruptive ones and the ones on a mission to put us right about a hot issue.

Isn't that subjective? And down to perception?

How do we differentiate the disruptive from non-disruptive ones?

Isn't it best to ignore them and they will be left talking to themselves? Why drive them away? So long as no one engages with them, it's rather amusing to watch the disruptive ones trip up.

No.

Challenge them.

How do they trip up unless challenged?

Yesterday syn wanted to bamboozle us with java code in an attempt to diminish the mccann.html issue.

Sadly for her there are some java experts here.

Back to the topic.

We still have an anomaly that demands a real credible explanation.

"Glitch" isn't going to cut it.

(I sound like one of my customers).

by Guest 21.06.15 9:01

whatsupdoc wrote:Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I've been checking the mccann.html files on WBM and if you try 30th April and the 1st May links including an * after the date/time stamp you get the calendar and can see the 30th and the 1st snapshot dates, Clicking on either will bring up a pic of Madeleine but the date on the top has been changed to 13th May.

The link for YouTube around midday on the 30th April is still there and showing 30th April when the snapshot is clicked on. All working, no problems.

So other sites such as YouTube are working on 30th April around 1200 on WBM ...just the mccann.html file causing a problem....AFAIK

I don't think a glitch covers an event such as making a file entry days before it has supposedly occurred.

They just deleted the archive file in the 20070430 folder and their software finds the nearest one after that date.

It was originally showing a file IN the 20070430.

When they eventually run their index rebuild (which they said they will do very soon) the summary page will lose the 30th April 2007 blue circle.

Very 1984.

What about all the other pages that day?

If the supposed "glitch" just affected this page then that's a big red flag for me.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.06.15 9:01

Just Askin wrote:Is it just a coincidence that also on the 30th of April 2007 it is alleged that Barroso was shown a photograph of Madeleine McCann.

Alleged by whom? When was it alleged? Under what circumstances? Let's have a reference please, otherwise this alleged information is worthless.

Thanks

by Doug D 21.06.15 9:03

Some interesting snips from ‘Resistor’ on MMM, with ‘WLBTS’ still fighting against his comments :

‘I have been out for most of the day but I just ran a little test, that might be of some interest. Somebody has told me that people are questioning whether Wayback can pick up orphan pages, i.e. pages loose on servers that don't have hyperlinks to them. That is a very good question. I just checked with one of my own sites and yes, it does. I don't know how it does it exactly, without seeing the code - I suspect it polls the server log, probably an XML file - and just lists everything in there. There is a page on one of my own sites, hosted by 1&1 actually, that has never, ever been live or linked to, as it was only created for testing purposes, inside a folder and not intended for public consumption. But it's there.’

‘I am not entirely sure what this proves, but I am sure it must prove something. Even if it's only that somebody at WBM has been very, very busy on behalf of CEOP over the past couple of days.'

‘It proves, as much as anything else, that the records have been manipulated.

As the indexing is an automatic process, when the next big re-index happens, all of that will have gone and the April 30 blue dots will disappear. Anyone looking at it in, say, 6 months time wouldn't be any the wiser that anything untoward had even happened.

But why this hasty cover-up, that is what I want to know. At the very least it looks highly suspicious. If that had been my code, I would have changed it but also issued an apology for the error, and an explanation. The fact they haven't even done that, but just hoped that nobody would notice, leads me to believe that somebody, somewhere, has something to hide.

If the code for the entire point of their existence - saving things at a specific time - is wrong, where is the major bug fix for it? Has that been released yet? Are they even working on it? Does anybody know?’

………………………………………………………..

Most interesting to me seems to be the highlighted comment that WBM can & does pick up ‘orphan’ pages without hyperlinks wheras we have been told on here by some experts that this cannot possibly happen.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.06.15 9:13

Doug D wrote:Most interesting to me seems to be the highlighted comment that WBM can & does pick up ‘orphan’ pages without hyperlinks wheras we have been told on here by some experts that this cannot possibly happen.

This is absolutely crucial to this debate.

@ Nuala joined here specifically to answer my question on this very point - and was absolutely adamant that this [picking up 'orphan' pages] was a physical impossibility.

by Guest 21.06.15 9:26

[quote="aiyoyo"]Every time any new member joins to participate in the discussion on their specialised field, they are regarded with suspicions? Why?

Why is there a need to denigrate new members?

How do we hope to attract and more importantly retain talented members if we adopt that kind of attitude all the time?[/quote]

==============================

goodpost

by Guest 21.06.15 9:28

[quote="BlueBag"][quote="aiyoyo"]Every time any new member joins to participate in the discussion on their specialised field, they are regarded with suspicions? Why?

Why is there a need to denigrate new members?

How do we hope to attract and more importantly retain talented members if we adopt that kind of attitude all the time?[/quote]
1) Because there are people already here who are also specialised in the same field and smell the BS, epecially when people sign up [u]just[/u] to tell us we are wrong.

2) History of this forum shows we should be wary, after 8 years a real "new member" is rare.

3) We don't adopt this attitude all the time.

The other thing to watch out for is starting David Icke Forum type "crazy" theories - diminish the good stuff by surrounding it with the nutty... "hey look... they're all nuts".
The David Icke forum is a great example of the interesting thing being deliberately smothered by the wacky. Now it's all wacky as the good posters went away.

Protecting forum integrity is important.[/quote]

thumbsup

ALL important, I'd say

by SixMillionQuid 21.06.15 9:28

Well this mysterious unexplained glitch seems to have accurately captured another website on 30 April 2007

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Date on captured webpage is Monday, Apr 30. The WB timestamp is 2007 - 04 - 30 20:53:55

by Guest 21.06.15 9:31

[quote="whatsupdoc"]Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I've been checking the mccann.html files on WBM and if you try 30th April and the 1st May links including an * after the date/time stamp you get the calendar and can see the 30th and the 1st snapshot dates, Clicking on either will bring up a pic of Madeleine but the date on the top has been changed to 13th May.

The link for YouTube around midday on the 30th April is still there and showing 30th April when the snapshot is clicked on. All working, no problems.

So other sites such as YouTube are working on 30th April around 1200 on WBM ...just the mccann.html file causing a problem....AFAIK

I don't think a glitch covers an event such as making a file entry days before it has supposedly occured.[/quote]

clapping

At least one of us keeps their eye on the ball

Isn't that what we are all about?

by Guest 21.06.15 9:35

Several CEOP pages that were archived on 30th April 2007 at 11.58.03 have been now removed from the base folder.

Including this one:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Which could have proved interesting.

Anyway they've deleted more than one file.

by aiyoyo 21.06.15 9:44

BlueBag wrote:How do they trip up unless challenged?

They trip up by what they posted, no need challenging for that to happen.

Kate & Gerry are perfect examples.
They are infamous for their trip up speeches/statements all the time, not always necessarily with any provocation or challenge.

Anyway back to topic.

by Guest 21.06.15 9:47

This one is also deleted:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

If you trip through the snapshots of the press release pages they all seem entirely accurate for the date selected.

Except for April 30th which is getting redirected because the original has been deleted.

by Guest 21.06.15 10:05

New York Times 30th April 2007.. perfect.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by canada12 21.06.15 10:09

I'm still quite astounded that an entity like WBM [based in the US] would tamper with files that could potentially have a link to an ongoing police investigation in the UK.

However, having said that, I'm also equally persuaded that if the police investigation in the UK needed any information about these files, they should be able to access the full dossier of information from WBM if required.

And I still want to believe this is something OG was aware of even before we were, and they have been watching what's been happening, making notes, and investigating.

And the fact that so many files have now disappeared may be a false signal to whoever asked for the changes, to convince them that WBM is dancing to their tune... when it might actually be the opposite, and a net has been cast and is slowly reeling in its catch.

by SixMillionQuid 21.06.15 10:10

PeterMac wrote:They haven't managed to 'whoosh' it yet.

Have a look, and make your own copies and screenshots

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

(It would, incidentally, fit with the Last Photo's having been taken on 29th April, as we know)
Wouldn't it be poetic if CEOPS were the source of the downfall.
But might this revelation show why Gamble has been so defensive, and gave up any semblance of professional detachment ?
The date is shown very clearly top right.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

Just reposting PMs post to show the page actually existed..before the 'dirty tricks brigade' took action.

by SixMillionQuid 21.06.15 10:13

BlueBag wrote:New York Times 30th April 2007.. perfect.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by HKP 21.06.15 10:18

Whilst I'm not supporting WLBTS his point of what other archived pages show things from the future still stands as far as I can see. Has anyone found any other page that replicates the McCann.htm page where there are items detailed from months further on. I realise there's the whole dynamic verses static debate but is there another replication.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.06.15 10:48

Is this right? - just asking for clarification please

1. The Wayback Machine was crawling the web on 30 April 07

2. It crawled over ('found') the 'Madeleine html' page on the CEOP website at 11.58am & 3 secs on 30 April 07

3. It then archived that 'find'

4. When it 'found' that 'Madeleine html' page, on it was an old photo of Madeleine McCann and some text in 4 different languages

5. 'Stevo' found this archive result on Tuesday last week

6. Isabelle McFadden wrote to Christopher Butler, Wayback Office Manager, and asked him to confirm the result. He did so in unequivocal terms

7. HideHo then 'phoned Christopher Buler

8. Christopher Butler then said 'it must be a mistake' to both HideHo and Isabelle McFadden. And has since sdaid nothing further.

9. Wayback is now 'correcting' its 'error'.

If I am not correct about points 1 to 4, would those who suggest this was an error, or 'glitch', please explain in clear terms which part of Nos. 1 to 4 above is not right.

If there was an error, or 'glitch', please explain in clear terms what that error or glitch was.

Thanks

by aiyoyo 21.06.15 10:53

BlueBag wrote:Several CEOP pages that were archived on 30th April 2007 at 11.58.03 have been now removed from the base folder.

Including this one:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Which could have proved interesting.

Anyway they've deleted more than one file.

If a *glitch* why not leave it in situ after the explanation?
Serves no useful purpose to reassign or whoosh it. It only attracts attention in the negative way. If it's a glitch surely all other erroneous data in the system has to be rectified. If there is an error in the timestamp or software setup would it not be better if they put up a notification and apology on their site stating which to which period needs to be overhauled to reflect accuracy?
Surely that would be better damage control and limit their liability also where use of their archive info is concerned for judicial purposes. With the accuracy validity issue invalidated by them, their archived records can no longer be of use to the public, let alone court.

What's the point of Wayback Machine if it now invalidates it own integrity by their action of regrouping and reallocating things and/or whooshed certain archive records (even if erroneous one) from view.

The proper way to amend is to issue appendix notes to explain the *error* while at the same time leaving the *error* in situ, rather than reallocating it to new slot and whooshing the *error* leaving no trace of it. It's ironic that the WBM data captured by public members has become *wayback* info in the public domain but no longer held in archive by WBM.

by Guest 21.06.15 11:00

Tony Bennett wrote:Is this right? - just asking for clarification please

1. The Wayback Machine was crawling the web on 30 April 07

YES... previous New York Times page proves it. It also archived amazon.com twice that day and looks correct.

2. It crawled over ('found') the 'Madeleine html' page on the CEOP website at 11.58am & 3 secs on 30 April 07

All the CEOP pages were "found" and archived.. they've all since been deleted. I have given examples.

3. It then archived that 'find'

Yes.

4. When it 'found' that 'Madeleine html' page, on it was an old photo of Madeleine McCann and some text in 4 different languages

Yes.

by Guest 21.06.15 11:02

WBM have to demonstrate that CEOP was not the only page with a problem.

If they can't do that I cry foul.

by **PeterMac** 21.06.15 11:07

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Is this right? - just asking for clarification please

1. The Wayback Machine was crawling the web on 30 April 07
YES... previous New York Times page proves it. It also archived amazon.com twice that day and looks correct.

2. It crawled over ('found') the 'Madeleine html' page on the CEOP website at 11.58am & 3 secs on 30 April 07
All the CEOP pages were "found" and archived.. they've all since been deleted. I have given examples.

3. It then archived that 'find'
Yes.

4. When it 'found' that 'Madeleine html' page, on it was an old photo of Madeleine McCann and some text in 4 different languages
Yes.

It really does help to ask questions in the simplest possible way, as this demonstrates.

Rather like "Mrs Martorell, you have said three times that Madeline was 'abducted'. Do you have any evidence of this ?"