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

by Nuala 29.06.15 11:47

@ HKP

coming up with a high percentage of 8779 urls seeming to have occurred on this very day

There is nothing seeming about it. It's front of all our eyes. Even a non-techie can take a look and see it, it involves no technical knowhow, just eyes in one's head.

we need to prove were there or not are the ones relating to Madeleine i.e. mccann.html and madeleine jpegs 01 & 02 etc.

That's already been proved. Wayback has already confirmed in writing that the 30 Apr 2007 date for mccann.html is incorrect. That should have been proof enough except people didn't believe them.

The vast number of URLs erroneously given a date of 30 Apr 2007 just backs up the proof we were already given by Wayback. The URLs for 30 Apr 2007 got screwed up, and amongst the URLs that got screwed up Wayback has confirmed in writing that mccann.html is one of them.

by Nuala 29.06.15 11:58

@ Tony Bennett

Whilst that's all very interesting it's actually irrelevant.

Whatever implications there are, or not, for Wayback if some of the archived dates are wrong is nothing to do with us, unless any of us has used Wayback in a court of law ourselves.

We are only concerned with mccann.html and the two JPGs of Madeleine, and any legal implications for Wayback (not that I think there are any) is just a distraction, though an interesting one, but a distraction nonetheless.

It's worth noting as well, that whilst the original date of 30 April 2007 for mccann.html was incorrect Wayback confirmed in writing that it was incorrect, so if it happened that this information was to be used in a court of law Wayback's affidavit would also confirm in writing that the correct date was actually one in July 2007.

It's not a big deal, the original date was incorrect but Wayback checked, saw it was incorrect, and said so.

by Joss 29.06.15 11:59

Some more good info. on WBM & how it relates to legal cases. Thanks TB. But in this instance there is no court case in regard to McC's, and whether information from WBM is admissable or not in proving the whole thing is based on a lie that Madeleine was gone before the 3/5/2007, from CEOP's page on the 30/4. No court case, no trial, no judge, no info. from a print out of WBM as to the relevence of the information. So what have we actually got? A big fat nothing IMO.

by Joss 29.06.15 12:16

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

Whilst that's all very interesting it's actually irrelevant.

Whatever implications there are, or not, for Wayback if some of the archived dates are wrong is nothing to do with us, unless any of us has used Wayback in a court of law ourselves.

We are only concerned with mccann.html and the two JPGs of Madeleine, and any legal implications for Wayback (not that I think there are any) is just a distraction, though an interesting one, but a distraction nonetheless.

It's worth noting as well, that whilst the original date of 30 April 2007 for mccann.html was incorrect Wayback confirmed in writing that it was incorrect, so if it happened that this information was to be used in a court of law Wayback's affidavit would also confirm in writing that the correct date was actually one in July 2007.

It's not a big deal, the original date was incorrect but Wayback checked, saw it was incorrect, and said so.

So of what relevence is the discussion about WBM and whether it's wrong or right? I agree, if it was a matter of a legal case then WBM would just state it was an error and why it was, and that would be that, and who would prove it to be otherwise if someone from WBM staff sign an affidavit saying so. They run the WBM, we don't.

by Nuala 29.06.15 12:19

@ Joss

So of what relevence is the discussion about WBM and whether it's wrong or right?

Wayback confirmed in writing that the date of 30 Apr 2007 for mccann.html was incorrect.

Some people didn't believe them, hence the continued discussion.

by Joss 29.06.15 12:29

Nuala wrote:@ Joss

So of what relevence is the discussion about WBM and whether it's wrong or right?

Wayback confirmed in writing that the date of 30 Apr 2007 for mccann.html was incorrect.

Some people didn't believe them, hence the continued discussion.

Thanks for your reply.

by jeanmonroe 29.06.15 12:31

@Nuala

Just a 'quickie'

Do we 'know' if ANY, WBM 'archives/captures,' from 30th April, 2007, have been 'used' in court 'cases'?

by Joss 29.06.15 12:33

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

by whodunnit 29.06.15 12:36

@Nuala--"That's already been proved. Wayback has already confirmed in writing that the 30 Apr 2007 date for mccann.html is incorrect. That should have been proof enough except people didn't believe them."

Because we could all see with our own eyes that WBM backtracked on a very confident endorsement of it's capture only after they were informed of the 'high profile' 'sensitivity' of the case. This is not an inconsequential sequence of events nor is it unworthy of our consideration in assessing the veracity of WBM's second, less confident repudiation of it's capture, especially in light of the fact that no explanation of the error was offered at that time nor indeed has an explanation been forthcoming. A simple denial may be enough for you and some others and that's fine but some of us remain unconvinced and probably will do unless or until such time as a coherent, believable explanation is offered.

As for archive.is, I do wish mods and admins would split off and move those discussions to their own thread. The pages under scrutiny from archive.is are manually uploaded by people not crawled. They are copies of WBM's original captures. The copies at archive.is are not the issue.

by Joss 29.06.15 12:42

whodunnit wrote:@Nuala--"That's already been proved. Wayback has already confirmed in writing that the 30 Apr 2007 date for mccann.html is incorrect. That should have been proof enough except people didn't believe them."

Because we could all see with our own eyes that WBM backtracked on a very confident endorsement of it's capture only after they were informed of the 'high profile' 'sensitivity' of the case. This is not an inconsequential sequence of events nor is it unworthy of our consideration in assessing the veracity of WBM's second, less confident repudiation of it's capture, especially in light of the fact that no explanation of the error was offered at that time nor indeed has an explanation been forthcoming. A simple denial may be enough for you and some others and that's fine but some of us remain unconvinced and probably will do unless or until such time as a coherent, believable explanation is offered.

As for archive.is, I do wish mods and admins would split off and move those discussions to their own thread. The pages under scrutiny from archive.is are manually uploaded by people not crawled. They are copies of WBM's original captures. The copies at archive.is are not the issue.

BBM, You might be waiting a long time for that to happen from their legal faq's i just posted about.

(Quote)
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, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. 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.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.06.15 12:44

Nuala wrote:@ Joss

So of what relevance is the discussion about WBM and whether it's wrong or right?

Wayback confirmed in writing that the date of 30 Apr 2007 for mccann.html was incorrect.

Some people didn't believe them, hence the continued discussion.

@ Nuala

No, the reason the discussion is continuing is simply because:

(a) they gave no explanation as to how and why it was wrong

(b) indeed, they rushed to judgment in saying it was an error and THEN said 'we are continuing to investigate' and

(c) they have since refused to answer perfectly straightforward, easy-to-answer questions about what went wrong, not even bothering to write back and say: 'We are still investigating'

by whodunnit 29.06.15 12:47

Indeed Joss, I've acknowledged as much before but a wave of the hand and a blanket denial after being warned of the highly sensitive nature of their answer is simply not enough for many of us to accept an unexplained error as a fact. If some want to accept it that is their right.

I think in light of other evidence that April 30th, 2007 in PDL was a 'highly sensitive' topic for the Tapas 9, you'll forgive us for remaining skeptical.

by Joss 29.06.15 12:57

whodunnit wrote:Indeed Joss, I've acknowledged as much before but a wave of the hand and a blanket denial after being warned of the highly sensitive nature of their answer is simply not enough for many of us to accept an unexplained error as a fact. If some want to accept it that is their right.

I think in light of other evidence that April 30th, 2007 in PDL was a 'highly sensitive' topic for the Tapas 9, you'll forgive us for remaining skeptical.

whodunnit, I appreciate what you're saying, smilie

What people aren't getting is WBM doesn't owe us anything in the way of an explanation. If you want their services in that regard they explain about how to do that, as i just posted that information.
Nothing surprises me in the McCann case with all the convolutions of this case. This is just another brick in the wall as to what really happened to Madeleine, and just throw it in with all the rest of the lies we have been fed about what really happened, as if we will ever know anyway. All we can do is speculate and try and put 2+2 together to make it =4. But nothing is adding up as usual.

by Joss 29.06.15 13:01

And if the investigating authorities don't want to validate this WBM discrepency, what are we going to do about it? Keep looking at suspect burglars from PDL i suppose, roll

by whodunnit 29.06.15 13:03

@Joss--"What people aren't getting is WBM doesn't owe us anything in the way of an explanation"

I get that, I really do--although I also believe it would behoove WBM to promptly dispel an inaccurate reputation for unreliability. What other people aren't getting is that nobody is under any obligation to trust unexplained, uncorroborated pronouncements offered by parties with a vested interest.

by HKP 29.06.15 13:06

The Wayback machine last crawled the McCann page on 27/06/15 they obviously aren't that concerned (have difficulty cause can't post links however if you download the Dr Martins search you can spill out to excel and see all sorts, much which leaves you scratching your head!)

by sallypelt 29.06.15 13:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ Joss

So of what relevance is the discussion about WBM and whether it's wrong or right?

Wayback confirmed in writing that the date of 30 Apr 2007 for mccann.html was incorrect.

Some people didn't believe them, hence the continued discussion.
@ Nuala

No, the reason the discussion is continuing is simply because:

(a) they gave no explanation as to how and why it was wrong

(b) indeed, they rushed to judgment in saying it was an error and THEN said 'we are continuing to investigate' and

(c) they have since refused to answer perfectly straightforward, easy-to-answer questions about what went wrong, not even bothering to write back and say: 'We are still investigating'

Tony, this is snipped from your 10.55 post, today:

One might be inclined to subpoena an expert from Internet Archive to present the evidence, but this carries with it the inherent risks of using subpoenaed witnesses. Internet Archive expressly asks on its website that users do not resort to this course because of the strain it will place on its resources.

Could this be the answer for the silence?

by HKP 29.06.15 13:11

It appears that ceop have changed their url for the mccann page sometime between 16/06/15 and 27/06/15 by adding /html then mccann. I wonder why at this specific time

by Joss 29.06.15 13:32

whodunnit wrote:@Joss--"What people aren't getting is WBM doesn't owe us anything in the way of an explanation"

I get that, I really do--although I also believe it would behoove WBM to promptly dispel an inaccurate reputation for unreliability. What other people aren't getting is that nobody is under any obligation to trust unexplained, uncorroborated pronouncements offered by parties with a vested interest.

I agree, that no one is under any obligation to deem WBM as 100% accurate in their archiving process, but could be said to be fairly reliable overall from what i have read about it. I think it would also depend on the other party as to what they had entered and how that information came about being there for WBM to have their capture of it.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.06.15 13:40

sallypelt wrote:
Tony, this is snipped from your 10.55 post, today:

One might be inclined to subpoena an expert from Internet Archive to present the evidence, but this carries with it the inherent risks of using subpoenaed witnesses. Internet Archive expressly asks on its website that users do not resort to this course because of the strain it will place on its resources.

Could this be the answer for the silence?

@ sallypelt

NO.

Because they have already sent out three e-mails, one saying everything was hunky-dory, the next two saying 'Oh no it isn't, we're investigating'.

It's obviously no big deal for the Office Manager to send out an e-mail or three.

Yet for 12 days he can't send out a fourth telling us what the problem is - if any

by whodunnit 29.06.15 13:41

@Joss---"I agree, that no one is under any obligation to deem WBM as 100% accurate in their archiving process"

Lol, well that's not what I said, exactly. Heretofore, WBM has been quite reliable and accurate.

"but could be said to be fairly reliable overall from what i have read about it"

Indeed. Read this! Just google 'Village Voice
Why Were New York Government Websites Hidden From an Internet Archive for 13 Years?

"Since its inception in 1996, the organization has become a critical resource for academics and researchers interested in the internet as a cultural repository. One part of the project, called the Wayback Machine, has been especially popular. It's like a time capsule for the Web, preserving copies of billions of pages, as they are, at a moment in time.
It couldn't be simpler; type in a URL, and the Wayback Machine will display snapshots of that URL on various dates. It's especially useful for looking back at deleted information, which has made the Wayback Machine an indispensable tool for journalists. Some politician decided to remove a particularly blockheaded press release from his site? The Wayback Machine sees all, and preserves every misstep."
~~~
I'm sure there are academics, researchers, and journalists who are keenly interested in whether or not they should continue to rely upon WBM. Up until now they haven't had any reason to distrust it.

by Joss 29.06.15 13:50

whodunnit wrote:@Joss---"I agree, that no one is under any obligation to deem WBM as 100% accurate in their archiving process"

Lol, well that's not what I said, exactly. Heretofore, WBM has been quite reliable and accurate.

"but could be said to be fairly reliable overall from what i have read about it"

Indeed. Read this! Just google 'Village Voice
Why Were New York Government Websites Hidden From an Internet Archive for 13 Years?

"Since its inception in 1996, the organization has become a critical resource for academics and researchers interested in the internet as a cultural repository. One part of the project, called the Wayback Machine, has been especially popular. It's like a time capsule for the Web, preserving copies of billions of pages, as they are, at a moment in time.
It couldn't be simpler; type in a URL, and the Wayback Machine will display snapshots of that URL on various dates. It's especially useful for looking back at deleted information, which has made the Wayback Machine an indispensable tool for journalists. Some politician decided to remove a particularly blockheaded press release from his site? The Wayback Machine sees all, and preserves every misstep."
~~~
I'm sure there are academics, researchers, and journalists who are keenly interested in whether or not they should continue to rely upon WBM. Up until now they haven't had any reason to distrust it.

I don't think i said that's what you said, lol. That's what i said though, smilie

I agree and think WBM to be a reliable resource for anyone that needs to access information.
But what's to say this error if there was one was WBM's error? Why couldn't it be an error from CEOP's end, and once realized they wanted it amended a.s.a.p for obvious reasons?

by whodunnit 29.06.15 14:03

@Joss--"Why couldn't it be an error from CEOP's end, and once realized they wanted it amended a.s.a.p for obvious reasons?"

Finally! I've been saying this for daaaays.

As for an apparent inordinate amount of indexing for the April 30th capture, please read Dr. Roberts' latest comment to his Monday Monday piece. I'll reproduce his conclusion but the whole thing is worth a read:

"So what was the function of this small (entirely HTML driven) file – one that scarcely existed by comparison with its more mature siblings? If it only came on stream after 3 May then its first appearance in the WBM should have been 12/13 May, with a possible attribution to the first crawl date of its senior partner. But that would have been December 05!!

For me it wears the hallmarks of a ‘work in progress’. It was not drafted into the home page in its entirety, as there is only one ‘banner’ present, and that is at the top. ‘McCann.html’ has its own, which is not introduced into the larger collage. ‘McCann.html' was an altogether separate entity therefore, tagged onto the site address by default, i.e. not specifically ‘indexed’ as such, whilst only certain of its elements were pillaged.

I fear we really need an expert on the database tactics of the WBM to resolve this."

by siobhan3443 29.06.15 14:14

re the 21nov screenshot not appearing on the wbm calendar. i've been thinking about this. there is no reason it should. it was captured by screenshots, which accepts manual requests to screenshot pages. there is no reason why it should be on the wbm calendar

by Nuala 29.06.15 14:22

@ Jeanmonroe

Do we 'know' if ANY, WBM 'archives/captures,' from 30th April, 2007, have been 'used' in court 'cases'?

No idea, sorry.

by Nuala 29.06.15 14:23

@ Whodunnit

very confident endorsement of it's capture

It was a standard reply, as one would expect. When questioned they then looked into further and confirmed the date was wrong.

Nothing suspicious about that.

A simple denial may be enough for you and some others

It's not just a simple denial, it's the other evidence as well.

Have you looked at the list of URLs?

Masses for 3rd Apr 2007, many indexing news articles that hadn't even appeared yet. There is a serious problem with that date, anyone with eyes can see it.

by Nuala 29.06.15 14:25

@ Tony Bennett

No, the reason the discussion is continuing is simply because:
(a) they gave no explanation as to how and why it was wrong
(b) indeed, they rushed to judgment in saying it was an error and THEN said 'we are continuing to investigate' and
(c) they have since refused to answer perfectly straightforward, easy-to-answer questions about what went wrong, not even bothering to write back and say: 'We are still investigating'

Wayback has no obligation whatsoever to answer questions.

Wayback is not accountable to us. I'm amazed anyone would think they are.

by Joss 29.06.15 14:29

whodunnit wrote:@Joss--"Why couldn't it be an error from CEOP's end, and once realized they wanted it amended a.s.a.p for obvious reasons?"

Finally! I've been saying this for daaaays.

As for an apparent inordinate amount of indexing for the April 30th capture, please read Dr. Roberts' latest comment to his Monday Monday piece. I'll reproduce his conclusion but the whole thing is worth a read:

"So what was the function of this small (entirely HTML driven) file – one that scarcely existed by comparison with its more mature siblings? If it only came on stream after 3 May then its first appearance in the WBM should have been 12/13 May, with a possible attribution to the first crawl date of its senior partner. But that would have been December 05!!

For me it wears the hallmarks of a ‘work in progress’. It was not drafted into the home page in its entirety, as there is only one ‘banner’ present, and that is at the top. ‘McCann.html’ has its own, which is not introduced into the larger collage. ‘McCann.html' was an altogether separate entity therefore, tagged onto the site address by default, i.e. not specifically ‘indexed’ as such, whilst only certain of its elements were pillaged.

I fear we really need an expert on the database tactics of the WBM to resolve this."

whodunnit, I'm glad we agree thumbup

In my view that is more than likely what has happened.
As was mentioned upthread, Wayback Machine is not in on any cover up in this case, it has no reason to be.

by Nuala 29.06.15 14:34

@ Whodunnit

As for an apparent inordinate amount of indexing for the April 30th capture, please read Dr. Roberts' latest comment to his Monday Monday piece. I'll reproduce his conclusion but the whole thing is worth a read

I've read it.

He doesn't know what he's talking about.

Wayback has given a date of 30 April 2007 to ONE THIRD of its total URLs for the CEOP website, including news items that CEOP hadn't even published at that date.

The captures for 30 April 2007 are screwed, not only has that been confirmed by Wayback themselves, but we can see it ourselves.

You might not like it, Dr Roberts might not like it, because it doesn't fit into your thirst for a conspiracy theory, but the evidence is in front of you. Basing any further investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, that starts with the notion that CEOP knew in advance that she was going to go missing, despite the evidence in front of your eyes that Wayback screwed up 30 Apr 2007 big time, means you are not doing that little girl any justice. She deserves better than this.

by Joss 29.06.15 14:36

Nuala wrote:@ Whodunnit

very confident endorsement of it's capture

It was a standard reply, as one would expect. When questioned they then looked into further and confirmed the date was wrong.

Nothing suspicious about that.

A simple denial may be enough for you and some others

It's not just a simple denial, it's the other evidence as well.

Have you looked at the list of URLs?

Masses for 3rd Apr 2007, many indexing news articles that hadn't even appeared yet. There is a serious problem with that date, anyone with eyes can see it.

Could that date be an issue because someone in trying to rectify data on WBM, and in doing so has also messed up dates on the other data that has also appeared now to be in error?

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