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

by Joss 19.06.15 15:53

LG wrote:I have asked this question on two FB groups - but as yet no one has been able to give me a satisfactory reply.

The file index.asp is from the backup on 30th April 2007 - as you can see it contains references to dates in October 2007 - why would that be?

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

Here is the same file taken from 13th October 2007 backup.

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

As far as I can tell, javascript runs html code to insert the Wayback Toolbar, which inserts the date of the backup.

Question 2 Where does this code take the date from?
(I would have expected this to be from the server clock (time of day) at the time of the back up).

I have checked this file on a fair few back ups and none of the contain dates in the future. They show pretty much as you would expect - the dates correspond to the date of back up on the tool bar).

This is the link to the 8,766 URL's Wayback has archived.

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

Going through the (pages and pages) it appears to me that there are a disproportionate number for 30th April 2007. This could be due to a full site back up - but I cannot prove this.

A couple of nights ago you were able to click on any file for that date (30/04/2007) and you could see the code for the page. They are obviously working on it as now that action gives the following.

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

If some kind person could kindly put me out of my misery, answers in words of one syllable would be much appreciated, as I'm no expert.

Thank you.

From what i have read there is a 6-14 month lag time between the date a site is crawled and the date it appears on the Way Back Machine. I guess if it was crawled on the 30/4/2007 and appeared in October 2007 that would be around the 6 months lag time.

by happychick 19.06.15 15:58

roy rovers wrote:Never having heard of the Wayback Machine until a few days ago I am afraid its shortlived reputation is already irreparably damaged in my eyes. They don't seem to know whether they're coming or going. No wonder they are working behind the scenes at Wayback to come up with a credible narrative. If was a defence attorney on a future case where Wayback evidence is being used I'd point to this one.

But surely it's CEOP that should be worried, not wayback? I don't understand why wayback feels the need to come up with a "credible narrative". It's CEOP that needs to come up with a credible narrative.

Better still, just get the PJ on to the case. I was going to say Operation Grange then thought better of it. laughat

by LG 19.06.15 16:05

Joss wrote:From what i have read there is a 6-14 month lag time between the date a site is crawled and the date it appears on the Way Back Machine. I guess if it was crawled on the 30/4/2007 and appeared in October 2007 that would be around the 6 months lag time.

Whilst I have read what you wrote - I'm thinking my understanding is somewhat different....

The time lag, to me, represents the time it takes to appear on the Wayback Machine Website and that is why each entry is specifically dated (time) stamped.

Am happy to be proved wrong (still waring my arm bands (read out of my depth)).

by FH 19.06.15 16:07

BlueBag wrote:
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.

Apologies. I misread the date info. I see now it was archived on the 30th April 2007 and retrieved on 17th June 2015. Duh.

However , this does not rule out a server clock issue after the 30th April. The WBM probably have multiple servers processing the data. If only one had a failing/failed clock battery and it was powered off for maintenance or a fault, , the system clock would slow and the date would become incorrect. Under these circumstance the clock can loose days, week, even years depending upon the battery power / time it was off. When the server was re-booted it would come up with the wrong date (in the past) and it would take time to resync its clock to the correct date. This normally takes seconds/minutes depending upon how often it is set to poll the time server. Any data processed in the window before the system clock was synchronised to the correct time would have the wrong time stamp. Data correctly collected on the 30th would not be affected, so looking at that data wouldn't help. If there are an abnormally large number of files for the 30th compared to other days, then that might indicate a server time error. if there is time stamped news content from after the 30th, but the archived date was 30th, that would also indicate a clock error. If there is a date when there is no data, but there should be , that would most likely be the date the problem occurred.

It could also be a software error. I have seen those too. They are rare, but they do happen.

Sadly it would take a forensic investigation on the servers involved (assuming they have backup data from 2007), to determine what happened, if it was even possible. Obviously if it was a glitch WBM may well know from their records/log files, but whether they will divulge the info remains to be seen.

In rare moments I do wonder if this is all some social experiment to see how the "proletariat" behave. Things have been really quiet recently , then suddenly this CEOP web page info is made available. Where did it really originate? Are we being drip fed misinformation to divert us? If so, from what?

by Guest 19.06.15 16:08

LG wrote:
Joss wrote:From what i have read there is a 6-14 month lag time between the date a site is crawled and the date it appears on the Way Back Machine. I guess if it was crawled on the 30/4/2007 and appeared in October 2007 that would be around the 6 months lag time.

Whilst I have read what you wrote - I'm thinking my understanding is somewhat different....

The time lag, to me, represents the time it takes to appear on the Wayback Machine Website and that is why each entry is specifically dated (time) stamped.

Am happy to be proved wrong (still waring my arm bands (read out of my depth)).

Yes.

The time stamp is the date when the snap shot was taken.

So that people know what the web page looked like on that date.

by **Jill Havern** 19.06.15 16:20

FH wrote: Things have been really quiet recently , then suddenly this CEOP web page info is made available. Where did it really originate? Are we being drip fed misinformation to divert us? If so, from what?

I asked Stevo about this yesterday and he sent me this message:

"Hi Jill, I was actually looking into CEOP. I've used the Wayback Machine since about 2000. I routinely look into it but just stumbled across the CEOP April 30 thing while looking for something else to do with SOCA."

Stevo is the author of "Faked Abduction".

by Joss 19.06.15 16:36

LG wrote:
Joss wrote:From what i have read there is a 6-14 month lag time between the date a site is crawled and the date it appears on the Way Back Machine. I guess if it was crawled on the 30/4/2007 and appeared in October 2007 that would be around the 6 months lag time.

Whilst I have read what you wrote - I'm thinking my understanding is somewhat different....

The time lag, to me, represents the time it takes to appear on the Wayback Machine Website and that is why each entry is specifically dated (time) stamped.

Am happy to be proved wrong (still waring my arm bands (read out of my depth)).

According to BB you are right. Sorry, it looks like i misunderstood your question, smilie

by Joss 19.06.15 16:38

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
FH wrote: Things have been really quiet recently , then suddenly this CEOP web page info is made available. Where did it really originate? Are we being drip fed misinformation to divert us? If so, from what?
I asked Stevo about this yesterday and he sent me this message:

"Hi Jill, I was actually looking into CEOP. I've used the Wayback Machine since about 2000. I routinely look into it but just stumbled across the CEOP April 30 thing while looking for something else to do with SOCA."

Stevo is the author of "Faked Abduction".

Interesting. Wonder what Stevo thinks about it all now?

by **PeterMac** 19.06.15 16:41

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the most important lesson the Wayback Machine provides is that Internet content is easily copied and stored for future use. Such use may be legally adverse to a website owner but, by requiring legal review of website content, this risk may be mitigated. However, the use of such archived images may also be used positively to the benefit of the website owner by using the Internet Archive’s archive service to monitor its own intellectual property. As the majority of federal courts admit such evidence with reasonable authentication requirements, a website owner can never be too aware of its options.

Well quite

(Somewhere the stuff about the fridge is stored. All it needs in someone to unearth it.)

by Guest 19.06.15 16:42

Did 'Stevo' make any enquiries with WBM himself after his discovery seeing that he has used it since 2000 and is obviously familiar with it.

by Cora 19.06.15 16:44

Joss wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
FH wrote: Things have been really quiet recently , then suddenly this CEOP web page info is made available. Where did it really originate? Are we being drip fed misinformation to divert us? If so, from what?
I asked Stevo about this yesterday and he sent me this message:

"Hi Jill, I was actually looking into CEOP. I've used the Wayback Machine since about 2000. I routinely look into it but just stumbled across the CEOP April 30 thing while looking for something else to do with SOCA."

Stevo is the author of "Faked Abduction".
Interesting. Wonder what Stevo thinks about it all now?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have messaged him about this forum and what Richard and others have said about this data, he is trying to contact Richard via Facebook.

by j.rob 19.06.15 17:00

Richard D. Hall wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here it is as plain as the nose on your face. The directory (or folder) name even has the current date encoded into it. This is proof that a file called mccann.html was copied from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 30th April 2007 at 11:58:03

Evidence exactly like this has been used successfully in court cases in the past.

Operation Grange should be quarantining the offices and computers of CEOP, to preserve further evidence which could show they had knowledge of this case 3 days before anyone is supposed to have been informed. And also how and why they may have had this knowledge.

This does not surprise me. There have been so many sloppy mistakes from TM that it's farcical really that anyone ever believed the story at all. And the early McCann media interviews are just dripping with incriminating words and body language. Jim Gamble and CEOP are/were well dodgy, imo and his zealous support of the McCanns is highly suspect given how unbelievable their version of events is. He should have backed off a long time ago as I think the house of cards is seriously crumbling. If you look at comments made by the general public whenever the McCanns are in the news they are overridingly unsupportive. Very few people believe them it would seem and there seems to be widespread dislike for their behaviour.

by j.rob 19.06.15 17:04

Gaggzy wrote:
Richard IV wrote:But how do you know Christopher Butler will tell the truth? He may have already been got at by CR in a similar fashion to how they got all the Scientology stuff removed from Waybackmachine.

If I was this Christopher Butler, from now on, I'd check underneath my car before getting in it; look both ways three-times-over before crossing the road; never leave my drink unattended while in the bar / restaurant, and maybe even seek out the local plastic surgeon! Oh, and make a public declaration that I have absolutely no intention of committing suicide.

'Watch your back, lad! Certain people LEAVE NO STONE UNTURNED to hide the truth.'

I know what you mean but he is one person of many in the company. It's not like he has been an avid "anti" - I think he was simply providing the information he was asked for.

Could it be that simple?

by **Jill Havern** 19.06.15 17:07

j.rob wrote:
Richard D. Hall wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here it is as plain as the nose on your face. The directory (or folder) name even has the current date encoded into it. This is proof that a file called mccann.html was copied from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 30th April 2007 at 11:58:03

Evidence exactly like this has been used successfully in court cases in the past.

Operation Grange should be quarantining the offices and computers of CEOP, to preserve further evidence which could show they had knowledge of this case 3 days before anyone is supposed to have been informed. And also how and why they may have had this knowledge.

This does not surprise me. There have been so many sloppy mistakes from TM that it's farcical really that anyone ever believed the story at all. And the early McCann media interviews are just dripping with incriminating words and body language. Jim Gamble and CEOP are/were well dodgy, imo and his zealous support of the McCanns is highly suspect given how unbelievable their version of events is. He should have backed off a long time ago as I think the house of cards is seriously crumbling. If you look at comments made by the general public whenever the McCanns are in the news they are overridingly unsupportive. Very few people believe them it would seem and there seems to be widespread dislike for their behaviour.

This what I find incredible (the bit hightlighted) - both Jim Gamble and PeterMac were very high ranking police officers so why is it that PeterMac can see right through the McCanns version of events but Jim Gamble apparently can't?

eta: I did ask Jim Gamble that question on twitter once and he blocked me.

by j.rob 19.06.15 17:11

happychick wrote:
roy rovers wrote:Never having heard of the Wayback Machine until a few days ago I am afraid its shortlived reputation is already irreparably damaged in my eyes. They don't seem to know whether they're coming or going. No wonder they are working behind the scenes at Wayback to come up with a credible narrative. If was a defence attorney on a future case where Wayback evidence is being used I'd point to this one.

But surely it's CEOP that should be worried, not wayback? I don't understand why wayback feels the need to come up with a "credible narrative". It's CEOP that needs to come up with a credible narrative.

Better still, just get the PJ on to the case. I was going to say Operation Grange then thought better of it.

Indeed. And it speaks volumes about the nature of this case that anyone who comes up with any incriminating information about the McCanns and their acolytes - even if inadvertently - is obliged to defend their position. Rather than the other way round.

I do agree with other posters that it would have been much better to have adopted a 'softly, softly' approach with Wayback. Got hold of the information in a low key manner and then get it authenticated by unbiased third parties with the relevant expertise in this type of thing.

Still, there is nothing to stop that happening now of course as the "glitch" in the system looks like rapid back-peddling.

by Jamming 19.06.15 17:13

Get'emGonçalo wrote:This what I find incredible (the bit hightlighted) - both Jim Gamble and PeterMac were very high ranking police officers so why is it that PeterMac can see right through the McCanns version of events but Jim Gamble apparently can't?

Because one of them has nothing to hide and/or nothing to gain, would be my guess

by hentie 19.06.15 17:13

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
j.rob wrote:
Richard D. Hall wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here it is as plain as the nose on your face. The directory (or folder) name even has the current date encoded into it. This is proof that a file called mccann.html was copied from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 30th April 2007 at 11:58:03

Evidence exactly like this has been used successfully in court cases in the past.

Operation Grange should be quarantining the offices and computers of CEOP, to preserve further evidence which could show they had knowledge of this case 3 days before anyone is supposed to have been informed. And also how and why they may have had this knowledge.

This does not surprise me. There have been so many sloppy mistakes from TM that it's farcical really that anyone ever believed the story at all. And the early McCann media interviews are just dripping with incriminating words and body language. Jim Gamble and CEOP are/were well dodgy, imo and his zealous support of the McCanns is highly suspect given how unbelievable their version of events is. He should have backed off a long time ago as I think the house of cards is seriously crumbling. If you look at comments made by the general public whenever the McCanns are in the news they are overridingly unsupportive. Very few people believe them it would seem and there seems to be widespread dislike for their behaviour.
This what I find incredible (the bit hightlighted) - both Jim Gamble and PeterMac were very high ranking police officers so why is it that PeterMac can see right through the McCanns version of events but Jim Gamble apparently can't?

eta: I did ask Jim Gamble that question on twitter once and he blocked me.

One is honest the other ...... big grin

by hentie 19.06.15 17:16

Gamble came bursting into the #McCann calling those questioning abduction idiots.

I hope he's eating his words!

by j.rob 19.06.15 17:24

This what I find incredible (the bit hightlighted) - both Jim Gamble and PeterMac were very high ranking police officers so why is it that PeterMac can see right through the McCanns version of events but Jim Gamble apparently can't?

--------

In an urgent fax to Detective Chief Inspector Robert Hall on 7th May 2007 Detective Amaral requests:

2. In the spirit of Police to Police Cooperation we request the presence of a British Criminal Analyst who may be able to assist the enquiry.
Also the collaboration of the UK's "Child Exploitation Online Protection" may be useful if they wish to send one of their officers to provide assistance to the investigation,

And who was head of CEOP at the time - Jim Gamble!

Putting the fox in charge of the hen coop.

Both CEOP (or whatever it's called now) and the Missing Charity should be scrutinized. Their close association with the McCanns - whose daughter "disappeared" in highly suspicious circumstances - is a total disgrace given that these organisation purport to help and support vulnerable young people.

Just disgraceful.

(Interesting questions Detective Amaral wants Jez Wilkins to answer in an urgent fax sent a few days after Madeleine disappeared. Despite the fact that Jez' partner journalist Bridget O'Donnell lied in a newspaper articla published later in 2007 by stating that the Portuguese police never bothered to contact Jez. An outright lie. As can be seen from the link below.)

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

by j.rob 19.06.15 17:27

hentie wrote:Gamble came bursting into the #McCann calling those questioning abduction idiots.

I hope he's eating his words!

Just shows that he is literally right up to his neck in it all. He's been an idiot. He should have backed off ages ago and should't be using twitter to criticize people who do not believe the McCanns and people who support justice for Madeleine. fan

by cloak'ndagger 19.06.15 17:59

I would urge caution. . The story has been debunked by Portuguese experts. . I will have written confirmation shortly. .

Am gutted..

by Guest 19.06.15 18:31

cloak'ndagger wrote:I would urge caution. . The story has been debunked by Portuguese experts. . I will have written confirmation shortly. .

Am gutted..

You are Magnum from over the road? Resistor's posts are interesting and helpful in understanding this.

by cloak'ndagger 19.06.15 18:47

Ladyinred wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:I would urge caution. . The story has been debunked by Portuguese experts. . I will have written confirmation shortly. .

Am gutted..
You are Magnum from over the road? Resistor's posts are interesting and helpful in understanding this.

Yes I have followed his posts with great interest .. From Portugal the news is that the story is too vague and is a ''red herring so it is back to Square one. .

by Guest 19.06.15 18:54

Who/what are your sources in Portugal?

by canada12 19.06.15 19:00

This information may not be of use to the trial in Portugal but that doesn't mean it's not useful to Operation Grange. If it's true, it provides evidence of Fraud, at the very least.

by cloak'ndagger 19.06.15 19:06

canada12 wrote:This information may not be of use to the trial in Portugal but that doesn't mean it's not useful to Operation Grange. If it's true, it provides evidence of Fraud, at the very least.

Hopefully Canada 12 .. I am following the thread with great interest. .

by Gaggzy 19.06.15 19:30

canada12 wrote:This information may not be of use to the trial in Portugal but that doesn't mean it's not useful to Operation Grange. If it's true, it provides evidence of Fraud, at the very least.

.... and that there's been more lies told than Pinocchio could have ever dreamed of.

by Guest 19.06.15 19:54

cloak'ndagger wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:I would urge caution. . The story has been debunked by Portuguese experts. . I will have written confirmation shortly. .

Am gutted..
You are Magnum from over the road? Resistor's posts are interesting and helpful in understanding this.
Yes I have followed his posts with great interest .. From Portugal the news is that the story is too vague and is a ''red herring so it is back to Square one. .

"Too vague" and "red herring" is not a debunking.

We have a genuine 100% anomaly here.

I await the explanation.

It may be innocent.

But I want to know.

by sallypelt 19.06.15 20:05

BlueBag wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:I would urge caution. . The story has been debunked by Portuguese experts. . I will have written confirmation shortly. .

Am gutted..
You are Magnum from over the road? Resistor's posts are interesting and helpful in understanding this.
Yes I have followed his posts with great interest .. From Portugal the news is that the story is too vague and is a ''red herring so it is back to Square one. .
"Too vague" and "red herring" is not a debunking.

We have a genuine 100% anomaly here.

I await the explanation.

It may be innocent.

But I want to know.

I have no clue as to how "crawlers" or "internet archiving" works. However, what I do know is, when I create a folder and then add files over a period of time, it will always say "date modified" when adjustments or information is added. But when I go to properties for that folder, it will tell me the date the folder was created.

Is this anything like what this thread is referring to?

by Guest 19.06.15 20:07

sallypelt wrote:Is this anything like what this thread is referring to?

No.

Latest topics