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

HiDeHo wrote:I'm sorry, I realise I won't be popular but this is how I see it...

Incorrect webpages got on the April 30th date...and WBM admitted to it being incorrect.. Leaves what explanations?

* Hacking
* WBM are complicit in changing the data for the benefit of the McCanns (even though they have no idea who they are)
* WBM automated web crawler and subsequent indexing processes were incorrect.

I know where most of my bets lay

@ HideHo

What do you say, please, to the claim that someone at CEOP created (shall we say) a 'dummy' web page with the URL:

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

on or before 11.58am on Monday 30 April 2007?


On one website where I am the named webmaster/domain name registrant etc. (nothing to do with Madeleine McCann by the way), our web developer uploaded a 'dummy' website which was inactive for months before we 'went live' and put it out on the internet for all to see. It was to help us build the site with input from three or four of us. 

The point was, we had a URL that was secret just to those of us building the site.

But if I have understood this correctly, these archiving sites scan crawl the web and 'see' these 'dummy' sites (or, in this case, a 'dummy' page), which are not yet 'live', is that not correct?


ALSO: Do you now say that this statement, made initially by Chrisopher Butler, is an incorrect statement of fact? Is it false please? - and, if so, in what respect?

QUOTE

The record you've identified

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

is the record we have

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

and the time [that the archive.org site crawled the web and found this URL - T.B.] April 30, 2007 11:58 and 3 seconds AM GMT.

UNQUOTE

HiDeHo wrote:
Why does a page exist for Madeleine on April 30th when she didn't disappear until three days later?

Is it possible for the source code/HTML to be tampered with?

Why did the source code have the same date of April 30th


At 3.17pm EST (8.17pm UK time) more than 5 hours after Isabelle had received her email I received the following email. Posted and Twittered (I dont Tweet, I Twit and run) 

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

Thanks for this.  Hope you enjoyed the rest of it!

Butler says the real date for Mccann.html is 31st July.

So they redirected the 30th April page to 13th May.

Yeah.. right.

Tony Bennett wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:I'm sorry, I realise I won't be popular but this is how I see it...

Incorrect webpages got on the April 30th date...and WBM admitted to it being incorrect.. Leaves what explanations?

* Hacking
* WBM are complicit in changing the data for the benefit of the McCanns (even though they have no idea who they are)
* WBM automated web crawler and subsequent indexing processes were incorrect.

I know where most of my bets lay

@ HideHo

What do you say, please, to the claim that someone at CEOP created (shall we say) a 'dummy' web page with the URL:

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

on or before 11.58am on Monday 30 April 2007?

I have a further question about the above for @ HideHo or anyone else please:

QUOTE

The record you've identified ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) is the record we have for the URL [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and the time April 30, 2007 11:58 and 3 seconds AM GMT.

UNQUOTE

What exactly do you say happened at 11hrs, 59mins, 3seconds AM, GMT, on Monday 30th April 2007?

Pat Brown having a bit of a moan about Stevo's find:

snipped

Recently, in the Madeleine McCann case comes a prime example of what kind of thing can go on in the minds of a jury. Someone checked the Wayback Machine, an Internet thing that allows you to check what happened on a particular day on the Internet in the past and they came up with a page labeled April 30th with an announcement by the governmental agency, CEOP - The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) is a command of the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA) - of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. All hell has broken loose on the Internet....many, including some folks who have written books and made films on the case....are[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]that Madeleine McCann did not die or disappear on May 3rd, the date Kate McCann claimed she found her daughter missing after doing a check on her children, but, instead Madeleine was already gone days before which therefore proves that there is some huge conspiracy afoot which includes the government and a gaggle of accomplices, a conspiracy in which some shady super powerful people did something to Madeleine McCann and then had the McCanns and their friends (and other possible accomplices) carried on a hoax for days in Praia da Luz, pretending Maddie was alive until May 3rd at which point they staged a really pitiful fake abduction so that all would think that she disappeared on that date and not that something happened to her days earlier! In spite of all the "proof" folks have been batting about - a "fake" last photo and "forged" creche records, stuff that some think proves Madeleine was already dead and gone by May 3rd - NOW there is DEFINITIVE proof with this April 30th CEOP page that Madeleine did not die or disappear on May 3rd and the government clearly is involved with some incredibly big hoax with the McCanns in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Oh my god, I have a really bad headache.

Clearly, there is just a glitch on the Wayback site because it just makes no damn sense. Common sense - which seems to be missing in this case - should tell anyone that the government is not going to accidentally put up a webpage that a child is missing three days before the parents report her missing to the police. If a conspiracy is SO big that the government is in on the disappearance, they are hardly going to do something so incredibly stupid. The whole idea just makes my head hurt and want to slam it into a wall. And this comes from a person who DOES believe there is evidence to support a theory that Madeleine came to an accidental death in the vacation flat and the McCanns did false report and cover up her death.




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

Neither would Government sanitise a CATS file...........................would it?

Tony Bennett wrote:
QUOTE

The record you've identified ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) is the record we have for the URL [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and the time April 30, 2007 11:58 and 3 seconds AM GMT.

UNQUOTE

What exactly do you say happened at 11hrs, 59mins, 3seconds AM, GMT, on Monday 30th April 2007?

Having initially missed this thread, I've finally managed to catch up.

For me this is the key, (and only?), question - where did the database entry come from that recorded finding that page on the 30th April 2007?  The time stamp is the Internet Archive's record of when they performed the crawl so nothing to do with server timestamps etc.

Without going into details of locking, multi-threading etc, there are all sorts of ways a software error could result in an incorrect database entry, particularly during changes to data, but that's much less likely with what is effectively a sequential log of timestamped events.

I think talk of the page being stored in a dated folder etc is a bit simplistic - they must capture the original page and then work on deltas.  The page you end up seeing is a mix of a server-side dynamically created page using the info beyond the /web/ to generate it, (if only to add their header, Javascript and meta-data), and heavy use of page redirects for media etc.

For example the first image of Madeleine on the 13th May page has in the page source the following URL: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
However what is actually served is a 6th June copy: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Whatever they've done to "correct" it still believes there is a 30th April 2007 entry since it still shows on the summary page.  If you edit the URL to other dates that weren't crawled it will still serves up a page by redirecting to the closest hit.  However choosing a date prior to the 30th April and watching the network requests, (e.g via F12 in a browser), you see an initial request to get mccann.html from the chosen date, followed by an HTTP "302 Moved Temporarily" redirect to the 30th April, followed by a further redirect to the 13th May.

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Pat Brown having a bit of a moan about Stevo's find:

Clearly, there is just a glitch on the Wayback site because it just makes no damn sense. Common sense - which seems to be missing in this case - should tell anyone that the government is not going to accidentally put up a webpage that a child is missing three days before the parents report her missing to the police. If a conspiracy is SO big that the government is in on the disappearance, they are hardly going to do something so incredibly stupid. The whole idea just makes my head hurt and want to slam it into a wall.

I would just observe that Pat Brown's reasoning above is linked to her unswerving belief that Madeleine died some time after she had 'high tea' with her parents and the nanny at around 5.30pm to 6pm on 3 May.

This was also the settled belief of Goncalo Amaral as expressed in 'The Truth About A Lie'. Amaral was persuaded of the truthfulness of all those who gave evidence about this event. So, presumably, is Pat Brown.

Because Pat Brown has closed her mind to other possibilities, and is perhaps unfamiliar with the extraordinarily close nexus between the McCanns and Jim Gamble, who was the head of CEOP on 30 April 2007, she is unable to see why, to some people, the idea that Jim Gamble or a colleague might have - covertly - set up a 'dummy' page about Madeleine on 30 April 2007 makes perfect damn sense  

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Pat Brown having a bit of a moan about Stevo's find:

snipped

Recently, in the Madeleine McCann case comes a prime example of what kind of thing can go on in the minds of a jury. Someone checked the Wayback Machine, an Internet thing that allows you to check what happened on a particular day on the Internet in the past and they came up with a page labeled April 30th with an announcement by the governmental agency, CEOP - The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) is a command of the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA) - of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. All hell has broken loose on the Internet....many, including some folks who have written books and made films on the case....are[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]that Madeleine McCann did not die or disappear on May 3rd, the date Kate McCann claimed she found her daughter missing after doing a check on her children, but, instead Madeleine was already gone days before which therefore proves that there is some huge conspiracy afoot which includes the government and a gaggle of accomplices, a conspiracy in which some shady super powerful people did something to Madeleine McCann and then had the McCanns and their friends (and other possible accomplices) carried on a hoax for days in Praia da Luz, pretending Maddie was alive until May 3rd at which point they staged a really pitiful fake abduction so that all would think that she disappeared on that date and not that something happened to her days earlier! In spite of all the "proof" folks have been batting about - a "fake" last photo and "forged" creche records, stuff that some think proves Madeleine was already dead and gone by May 3rd - NOW there is DEFINITIVE proof with this April 30th CEOP page that Madeleine did not die or disappear on May 3rd and the government clearly is involved with some incredibly big hoax with the McCanns in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Oh my god, I have a really bad headache.

Clearly, there is just a glitch on the Wayback site because it just makes no damn sense. Common sense - which seems to be missing in this case - should tell anyone that the government is not going to accidentally put up a webpage that a child is missing three days before the parents report her missing to the police. If a conspiracy is SO big that the government is in on the disappearance, they are hardly going to do something so incredibly stupid. The whole idea just makes my head hurt and want to slam it into a wall. And this comes from a person who DOES believe there is evidence to support a theory that Madeleine came to an accidental death in the vacation flat and the McCanns did false report and cover up her death.




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

Is P. Brown really so naive that she doesn't think Governments cover things up and lie, lol?

Hideho you do appear to have forced a certain response from them

 "I explained an overall description of the case and urged him that it was 'high profile' and in need of an urgent reply to prevent any damage that may be done by speculation. I also advised him of the importance for the answer to be correct as it could have serious implications

He acknowledged that he had returned an email to someone else but it was not based on the information that I had given him."

Tony Bennett wrote:

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Pat Brown having a bit of a moan about Stevo's find:

Clearly, there is just a glitch on the Wayback site because it just makes no damn sense. Common sense - which seems to be missing in this case - should tell anyone that the government is not going to accidentally put up a webpage that a child is missing three days before the parents report her missing to the police. If a conspiracy is SO big that the government is in on the disappearance, they are hardly going to do something so incredibly stupid. The whole idea just makes my head hurt and want to slam it into a wall.

I would just observe that Pat Brown's reasoning above is linked to her unswerving belief that Madeleine died some time after she had 'high tea' with her parents and the nanny at around 5.30pm to 6pm on 3 May.

This was also the settled belief of Goncalo Amaral as expressed in 'The Truth About A Lie'. Amaral was persuaded of the truthfulness of all those who gave evidence about this event. So, presumably, is Pat Brown.

Because Pat Brown has closed her mind to other possibilities, and is perhaps unfamiliar with the extraordinarily close nexus between the McCanns and Jim Gamble, who was the head of CEOP on 30 April 2007, she is unable to see why, to some people, the idea that Jim Gamble or a colleague might have - covertly - set up a 'dummy' page about Madeleine on 30 April 2007 makes perfect damn sense  

I agree, maybe poor old Pat just needs to take an aleve and lie down in a darkened room,

Maybe a Government would not, but maybe CEOP or one or more of its people would

Cui bono?

"Is P. Brown really so naive that she doesn't think Governments cover things up and lie,?"

Did Pat 'support' the 'invasion' of Iraq to 'destroy all those W'sMD' S Hussein 'had'?

Like she had been 'TOLD' by US Government?

jeanmonroe wrote:Did Pat 'support' the 'invasion' of Iraq to 'destroy all those W'sMD' S Hussein 'had'?

Like she had been 'TOLD' by US Government?

Possibly,

A "glitch" - priceless

... that explains it - we can all forget about it.  lol

Hey my car just failed its MOT. 

What seems to be the problem?

Oh I think the car has what is commonly referred to as a "glitch".  

Ah yes, mine had one of those a few years back.  Nasty little blighters them glitches.  I went to Halfords, they have got some "glitch spray" made by Pifco, it's only £99.99 but it fixes all known glitches.

Noh it's ok I went to the Magic Box joke shop and bought a magic wand and this seems to have done the trick.

Pat Brown should stick to studying people.

Richard D. Hall wrote:Hey my car just failed its MOT. 

What seems to be the problem?

Oh I think the car has what is commonly referred to as a "glitch".  

Ah yes, mine had one of those a few years back.  Nasty little blighters them glitches.  I went to Halfords, they have got some "glitch spray" made by Pifco, it's only £99.99 but it fixes all known glitches.

Noh it's ok I went to the Magic Box joke box and bought a magic wand and this seems to have done the trick.

Funnily enough, RBS, Nat West, Ulster Bank, never, NEVER, have 'a glitch' when their executives/traders huge, UK taxpayer 'funded', £million+ BONUSES are 'due' to be 'credited' to THEIR 'accounts'!

Weird that, innit?

I could postulate a simple reason for the discrepancy. System clocks are not always accurate.

On the 17th June 2007 the WBM web crawler found a page called McCann.html on the CEOP site that was dated 30th April and WBM  saved it.

There is absolutely no way to tell if the date from the CEOP system is accurate. Computer systems are not all synchronised to a definitive time source. They have internal clocks and when the battery dies, the internal clock does not always keep time correctly.   When the file was archived  on the CEOP site, the system clock could have been days/ weeks/months out in either direction. I'm not saying it was, or that it is likely it was, just saying it could have been and we have no way to tell.

There is a big gap (> 6 weeks) between the file being "archived" (is this a web publishing date?)  on the CEOP system and the WBM crawler discovering it. It would be interesting to know if the WBM web crawler accessed the  CEOP  site in the intervening period, or not. This would tell us approximately when the file  appeared real time.

What I don't understand is why WBM would alter the data. All they have to say is that the file was discovered by their web crawler on 17th June 2007. So it definitely existed on 17th June 2007. The date from the CEOP site is 30th April, but as WBM  are not responsible for that server, they cannot comment on the accuracy of the date.  

Why the need to change the data?

Is the Waybackmachine the ONLY internet archiver or crawler?

Perhaps the same search could be done using another crawler machine.  That`s if CR haven`t got there first !

From another site,  it seems that CR have used this tactic before for their clients the Church of Scientology and got loads of stuff removed from the Waybackmachine - just google Waybackmachine scientology - there`s loads on it.

Pat Brown is a member here. So please could we keep our comments respectful.

To be fair she has invested a lot of time and energy on the case - and right from 2007 has not been afraid to express her strong doubts about the official story.

She has also avoided the name-calling that has gone on between people supposedly of the same viewpoint on the case.

Without going into detail, she and I, as she knows, disagree about what did or didn't happen on the afternoon and evening of 3 May, and on whether Smithman was Gerry McCann or was a fabrication.

We have agreed to disagree without either accusing the other of being anything other than honest in intent. 

On the question of what accounts for a 'dummy' McCann page having apparently been picked up by archive.org at 11.58am and 3 secs on 30 April 2007, initially I accepted that Lizzy (HideHo) and the Christopher Butler bloke from archive.org must be correct in ascribing this to some kind of 'glitch' in the system.

But the more I have read here - and in another place by a poster called 'Resistor' in particular - from those who seem to have the technical competence to comment, the more I am unpersuaded that this can be written off as a mere 'glitch'.

How many 'glitches' have Wayback had over the years?

As others have pointed out, it is reminiscent of Eddie and Keela being right in hundreds of cases, but suddnely wrong when they go to Praia da Luz.

I am really hoping that HideHo will come on line later and answer my specific questions up the thread

HideHo has been online all morning.  I've been awaiting her reply to your posts too.

What's going to happen next with regard to WBM's discrepancy?  Will they disclose the results of their investigation to HideHo?  Hopefully they will provide a clear and honest explanation.

ETA: HideHo has just logged out.

FH wrote:What I don't understand is why WBM would alter the data...Why the need to change the data?

Suppose they were told (as they were by HideHo) - by someone who has known the case inside out for 8 years, something like this:

"Look, Madeleine McCann was first reported missing at 10.00pm on 3rd May. So how comes your web search comes up with a finding of a McCann html file three days earlier, 30th April? How could a government organisation like CEOP possibly develop a 'dummy' page on Madeleine McCann three days before she went missing? This is an international case, you might look very stupid if you don't provide an accepatale and full explanation".

Suppose he then rapidly searches 'Madeleine McCann' on the net and discovers two things: (A) It's one of the very biggest international stories of the past decade, and (B) It's true, she didn't go missing until about 10pm on 3 May.

THEN:  Utter panic! We've got this badly wrong! How can we get out of it?

SOON AFTER: I know! We'll put it down to a 'glitch'

FH wrote:On the 17th June 2007 the WBM web crawler found a page called McCann.html on the CEOP site that was dated 30th April and WBM  saved it.

Er.. the archive date isn't based on the date of the server containing the web page.

It's supposed to be the way the page looked on the internet the date and time of archive.

It is possible that wayback machine server had a wrong date.

But that would mean they have lots of pages stored incorrectly for that day.

I found a Daily Mirror page archived on the 30th April 2007 that was correct, so it was archiving other things correctly that day.

Or they could say -
WayBack is spot on. Evidence provided by the search engine is used in court proceedings and has never been successfully challenged
You will have to ask CEOPS.