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

BlueBag wrote:

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

No.

*laughing*

I told you that I am IT illiterate

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

Am gutted..

Who are these Portuguese experts?

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..

Who are these Portuguese experts?

Isabelle Mc Fadden has spoken of how she passed the information she gleaned onto the PJ. ..I can only tell you that the PJ cannot use this as evidence.. Take it or leave it.

Cn’D:
 
‘I can only tell you that the PJ cannot use this as evidence.. Take it or leave it.’
 
At the moment nobody can use it as evidence!
 
As BlueBag said above:
 
‘We have a genuine 100% anomaly here.
I await the explanation.
It may be innocent.
But I want to know.’
 
IF the 30^th April McCann posting can be proven to be correct, at that time it will become evidence that will be valid across the world and the House of Cards collapses.
 
That is why there is such a shillstorm going on at the moment to try and disparage and dismiss it.

What is present at the moment is some people with experience in technology who have no absolute concrete evidence that this Wayback stuff is concrete evidence of anything - let alone whether it would stand up in a court of law (that's the new one) and ripping into each other on their alleged expertise on the matter.

Wayback have been sent numerous emails I should imagine.

HiDeHo has been called into question and blamed for asking upfront questions.

Isabelle McFadden is being questioned also.

Pat Brown has been denigrated.

Steve Marsden (Stevo), the one who threw in this grenade without taking out the pin is now very quiet on the matter.

Richard D. Hall has called the man from Wayback (Mr Butler) an expert without checking his credentials.

Everyone's bitching and witching....and all for what?

There is no concrete evidence...just a bit of a thing from Steve Marsden (sorry, I don't know who he is, I haven't read Fake Abduction either) who says he stumbled across this info whilst looking for something else.

I've seen some nonsense in my 4 years on this forum but this one takes the biscuit.

Just my opinion.

Doug D wrote:Cn’D:
 
‘I can only tell you that the PJ cannot use this as evidence.. Take it or leave it.’
 
At the moment nobody can use it as evidence!
 
As BlueBag said above:
 
‘We have a genuine 100% anomaly here.
I await the explanation.
It may be innocent.
But I want to know.’
 
IF the 30^th April McCann posting can be proven to be correct, at that time it will become evidence that will be valid across the world and the House of Cards collapses.
 
That is why there is such a shillstorm going on at the moment to try and disparage and dismiss it.

I don't believe it can be proven one way or the other at this stage.  If what Steve says is true a cover up would very quickly have been put in place

But it shouldn't stop us in our quest for the truth..

Sorry Aquila, but I don’t agree that it should be dismissed completely at this stage.
 
Potentially this could be a game-changer. I know we’ve seen them before and they have come to nought, but there are still questions that need to be answered before I believe we are in a position to make a judgement.
 
The original archive screenshot dated 30^th April @11.58.03 with the McCann label, was seen by too many people before being changed and numerous screenshots have been taken (unlike the days of Gerry’s blog and the fridge)
 
The initial response to Isabelle made it clear that the company were standing by their archiving process, which we have ourselves found evidence of having been used in Courts before and which was also confirmed in their response.
 
The response to HideHo ‘does not feel right’ when compared to that given by allegedly the same person earlier in the day.
 
The immediate panic reaction, presumably by the Way Back people, again ‘does not feel right’ when they are still apparently investigating and also refutes any suggestion that documents have been tampered with in order to fit a ‘good’ story and a fools chase.
 
I imagine that the accurate capture of web pages is the very essence of profitability for the Way Back business, and as such the process must be damn near foolproof. To be suddenly sent into a quandary about the accuracy of their systems makes no sense, as if this is the case, their business case as it stands is a pointless nicety, and if so, no longer of value in legal cases, which must be the most lucrative side of the whole of their record keeping business.

Doug D wrote:Sorry Aquila, but I don’t agree that it should be dismissed completely at this stage.
 
Potentially this could be a game-changer. I know we’ve seen them before and they have come to nought, but there are still questions that need to be answered before I believe we are in a position to make a judgement.
 
The original archive screenshot dated 30^th April @11.58.03 with the McCann label, was seen by too many people before being changed and numerous screenshots have been taken (unlike the days of Gerry’s blog and the fridge)
 
The initial response to Isabelle made it clear that the company were standing by their archiving process, which we have ourselves found evidence of having been used in Courts before and which was also confirmed in their response.
 
The response to HideHo ‘does not feel right’ when compared to that given by allegedly the same person earlier in the day.
 
The immediate panic reaction, presumably by the Way Back people, again ‘does not feel right’ when they are still apparently investigating and also refutes any suggestion that documents have been tampered with in order to fit a ‘good’ story and a fools chase.
 
I imagine that the accurate capture of web pages is the very essence of profitability for the Way Back business, and as such the process must be damn near foolproof. To be suddenly sent into a quandary about the accuracy of their systems makes no sense, as if this is the case, their business case as it stands is a pointless nicety, and if so, no longer of value in legal cases, which must be the most lucrative side of the whole of their record keeping business.

We'll see.

Normally only read here, but have signed up because I happen to know the answer to this question from Tony Bennett:

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?

No, that's not correct.

It's very common when designing websites to have pages on the server for those involved in designing the website or page to view while the work is being done and if there is no link on the "live" website (or indeed any other website on the Internet) then only those who know the URL can access those web pages.

Web crawlers follow hyperlinks and cannot know about a page unless there is a hyperlink they can follow to that page.

The only exception would be if, for example, an unhyperlinked page was submitted to a search engine or crawler on purpose, to tell the search engine or crawler about that page.

But apart from that, pages that have no hyperlink to them aren't known about by search engines, crawlers etc etc.

Doug D wrote:Sorry Aquila, but I don’t agree that it should be dismissed completely at this stage.
 
Potentially this could be a game-changer. I know we’ve seen them before and they have come to nought, but there are still questions that need to be answered before I believe we are in a position to make a judgement.
 
The original archive screenshot dated 30^th April @11.58.03 with the McCann label, was seen by too many people before being changed and numerous screenshots have been taken (unlike the days of Gerry’s blog and the fridge)
 
The initial response to Isabelle made it clear that the company were standing by their archiving process, which we have ourselves found evidence of having been used in Courts before and which was also confirmed in their response.
 
The response to HideHo ‘does not feel right’ when compared to that given by allegedly the same person earlier in the day.
 
The immediate panic reaction, presumably by the Way Back people, again ‘does not feel right’ when they are still apparently investigating and also refutes any suggestion that documents have been tampered with in order to fit a ‘good’ story and a fools chase.
 
I imagine that the accurate capture of web pages is the very essence of profitability for the Way Back business, and as such the process must be damn near foolproof. To be suddenly sent into a quandary about the accuracy of their systems makes no sense, as if this is the case, their business case as it stands is a pointless nicety, and if so, no longer of value in legal cases, which must be the most lucrative side of the whole of their record keeping business.

I do think it is with worth pursuing.. I do know that Steve Marsden is doing further research over the weekend. .Let us hope that he can unearth something tangible.. Surely we are all on the same page here?

Nuala wrote:Normally only read here, but have signed up because I happen to know the answer to this question from Tony Bennett:

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?

No, that's not correct.

It's very common when designing websites to have pages on the server for those involved in designing the website or page to view while the work is being done and if there is no link on the "live" website (or indeed any other website on the Internet) then only those who know the URL can access those web pages.

Web crawlers follow hyperlinks and cannot know about a page unless there is a hyperlink they can follow to that page.

The only exception would be if, for example, an unhyperlinked page was submitted to a search engine or crawler on purpose, to tell the search engine or crawler about that page.

But apart from that, pages that have no hyperlink to them aren't known about by search engines, crawlers etc etc.

Thank you very much @ Nuala for signing up and for answering my question so promptly.

So I had misunderstood - and was wrong to think that a search engine or web-crawler could pick up a 'dummy' page - you are right in my case, I think, three of us worked on an actual URL which was kept secret until we went live. We would put the URL into the search bar, and up our page would come. 

As any non-tecchie must do, we must accept your firm answer, that:  "Pages that have no hyperlink to them aren't known about by search engines, crawlers etc.".

At least, until the next 'tecchie' comes along and challenges what you assert.      

Can I now please rephrase some of my earlier questions in the light of your information:

1. Would it be impossible for archive.org/Wayback Machine or any other web crawler to have 'found' the Madeleine page on CEOP's website, if it was just a 'dummy' URL, known only by one or two or a few people?

2. You say that archive.org COULD have picked up this page if the creator had somehow made that link public. Are you saying that absolutely could not be done accidentally? And is it possible that, say, one of those working on the 'dummy' page could have made the page 'go live' without the others knowing?

3. There is a reference in the data that we've seen to the Madeleine page having been found at 11.58am on 30 April. How do you say this could have got there? 

4. What exactly happened at 11.58am and 3 seconds on 30 April? Did the Wayback Machine actually do something at that time - and if so, what did it do please?

In much of this case, there are clear alternatives, e.g.

* either Madeleine was abducted - or she wasn't
* either the Smiths saw someone - or they didn't
* either the wind whooshed the curtains apart and caused the door to slam - or it didn't...
and so on.

Here, either the Wayback Machine captured a Madeleine McCann page which had been set up on the CEOP website before 11.58am and 3 seconds - or it didn't.

If it did, then the whole abduction claim falls, and many people will have to be arrested, charged and prosecuted.

If it didn't, we have been royally sent on a wild goose chase, or led up the garden path, or whatever, and wasted quite a lot of valuable time.

It must be one or the other, I hope the experts can soon come to a conclusion about which it is

Ladyinred wrote: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.

I've been searching to see if HideHo has replied anywhere to my queries, which were:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

@ 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.][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.][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.][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

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does anyone know, please, if she's answered these questions here, or elsewhere? - thanks

Tony Bennett wrote:

Ladyinred wrote: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.

I've been searching to see if HideHo has replied anywhere to my queries, which were:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

@ 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.][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.][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.][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

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does anyone know, please, if she's answered these questions here, or elsewhere? - thanks

Hi Tony ...

Firstly, may I add that whether I show online or offline has zero to do whether I have looked at these pages.

My pc is on 24/7 and though I am logged in I was asleep as Toronto time is 5 hrs behind UK time.

Regarding your question.... I dont feel I am knowledgeable enough to answer...

I am not a techie...I made a phone call to Chris at a time before I knew anything from this thread...

It was a phone call to find out the basics and to attempt to get some kind of interim acknowledgemnt about the situation.

I have made the contents of my call quite transparent...  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Anyone was free to call and ask their own questions, but as I understand it, myself and Isabelle were the only ones to call that morning (PST)

I did the best I could and am awaiting the result before I make any other comments...

It is out of respect for you Tony that I replied, when I realised you were searching for an answer from me.

I apologise that I cannot give you the answer you hoped for.

Nuala wrote:Normally only read here, but have signed up because I happen to know the answer to this question from Tony Bennett:

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?

No, that's not correct.

It's very common when designing websites to have pages on the server for those involved in designing the website or page to view while the work is being done and if there is no link on the "live" website (or indeed any other website on the Internet) then only those who know the URL can access those web pages.

Web crawlers follow hyperlinks and cannot know about a page unless there is a hyperlink they can follow to that page.

The only exception would be if, for example, an unhyperlinked page was submitted to a search engine or crawler on purpose, to tell the search engine or crawler about that page.

But apart from that, pages that have no hyperlink to them aren't known about by search engines, crawlers etc etc.

Thanks for joining just to tell us that... "new members" are always welcome.

Web crawlers might work that way, they also might work a different way.

The mccann.html file may have been visible to the web crawler for some reason - it might have been accidently published for some reason.. who knows what a web crawler is capable of seeing? Unsecured objects in the folder containing the webpage? 

At the moment we still have a genuine anomaly.

I would like an explanation.

From my understanding of verifying info. from the WBM if used in litigation a judge could or not allow that information in a trial if someone from WBM signs an affidavit that it is true & correct info. Then is still up to the judge to accept it or not depending on what Circuit Court it will be used in. And what are the chances now of someone from WBM verifying this info. and standing by their initial email?
So IMO i don't really see this going anywhere, but it would still be good to get the reasons for what has happened.
I often think if people in the general public hadn't donated any money to this case, where would the McC's have stood then? I would never donate money to such a case until it is absolutely certain and proven the parents had nothing to do with such a case, because as we know the stats. for parental or family involvement in missing child cases is very high. If the McC's never had all that money from the good public that donated they would never of been able to set up their "fighting" fund to cause such misery to people that had an alternate view about what happened. Once it has been properly established that parents are indeed innocent then people could donate for any ongoing searches.
There are the police & other resources that are Govt. funded to help with these cases anyway. All IMO.

BlueBag wrote:
At the moment we still have a genuine anomaly.
I would like an explanation.

I wonder if Gamble would be able to explain. He was in charge at the time.
Or the present leadership of CEOP
I doubt they would respond to a question, but it might be worth sending a carefully worded request.

Gamble has been extremely protective - in my view far more than his professional detachment should have allowed him.
Why ?

Joss wrote:Blue Bag, I don't think Hide Ho is a new member here, if that is who you are referring to.

No.

BlueBag wrote:

Joss wrote:Blue Bag, I don't think Hide Ho is a new member here, if that is who you are referring to.

No.

Sorry, just deleted it.

Joss wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

Joss wrote:Blue Bag, I don't think Hide Ho is a new member here, if that is who you are referring to.

No.

Sorry, just deleted it.

:-)

From the blog mentioned above

I asked him to please send me an email with initial information about the validity of the dates and to please let me know the answers to the following questions as well as the above:

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

Or perhaps more accurately "when she was not reported missing until three days later"

Joss wrote:From my understanding of verifying info. from the WBM if used in litigation a judge could or not allow that information in a trial if someone from WBM signs an affidavit that it is true & correct info. Then is still up to the judge to accept it or not depending on what Circuit Court it will be used in. And what are the chances now of someone from WBM verifying this info. and standing by their initial email?
So IMO i don't really see this going anywhere, but it would still be good to get the reasons for what has happened.
I often think if people in the general public hadn't donated any money to this case, where would the McC's have stood then? I would never donate money to such a case until it is absolutely certain and proven the parents had nothing to do with such a case, because as we know the stats. for parental or family involvement in missing child cases is very high. If the McC's never had all that money from the good public that donated they would never of been able to set up their "fighting" fund to cause such misery to people that had an alternate view about what happened. Once it has been properly established that parents are indeed innocent then people could donate for any ongoing searches.
There are the police & other resources that are Govt. funded to help with these cases anyway. All IMO.

Don't forget their association with multi-millionnaires Edward Smethurst and Brian Kennedy.

Interesting to follow this on HideHo's FB as well. Couple of recent snipped posts below:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I write crawlers for fun [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. I archived a ton of Anorak posts on the Madeleine case and saved over 30,000 jokes from sickipedia. Last year I wrote a specialized crawler for a hospital organization in Washington DC. Until I see a technical explanation of what their error is I'm not accepting that as a reason. It makes no sense.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] · Like · [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] It would need police or FBI intervention Carmel but the horse has already bolted unfortunately. What I don't understand is why they didn't leave the error in place. In accounting you don't erase errors you make a contra entry. Why rewrite this error in the backend (and still leave the calendar page wrong)? Why tweak it at all? Nothing is reliant on these pages in the wayback machine so what was so important for them to modify the data?
 
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] crawling is another way of saying saved. In this case to a time-stamped folder - that date is hard-coded into BOTH the java and the HTML so that it all works whatever the date. The WBM bot would have gone to the CEOP folder on Apr30 and saved all that was in it - unfortunately for whoever was preparing the mccann.html. It was there (with ONE maddie image remember) on CEOPs servers by AT LEAST Apr30 (it may have been uploaded on 29th, 28th or even Feb 2007 for all we know). By May 13th someone had edited the HTML to add the second image - hence why both captures (apr30 and May13 are DIFFERENT in appearance (ie two images on May one)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] The Lord is clapping for [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - he said "Until I see a technical explanation of what their error is I'm not accepting that as a reason. It makes no sense."
 
"Why rewrite this error in the backend (and still leave the calendar page wrong)? Why tweak it at all? "
 
I suggest SOMEONE was panicking, because as Steve said they left the calender page still linking to the Apr30 page, that has probably now shuffled off its mortal coil
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] · Like · [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] From the WBM introduction from the Andersen PDF link in above post -
 
"Most website owners are probably not aware of the Internet Archive
or its incredible “Wayback Machine.” While Internet Archive’s mission
to preserve our electronic history may be a noble one,
 
it can cause serious legal consequences for website owners.
 
Because the admissibility of screen shots obtained from the Wayback Machine has been
 
judicially approved in a majority of federal jurisdictions,
 
it has become even more important that website owners understand the possible implications of having their website content stored on the Wayback Machine as well as the limited options available to them for excluding their content"

I find the alterations being made more sinister than the original.
If this were just an innocent artefact they would have left it, and given the explanation
If they have changed it - and I am not tecchie enough to know - this suggests that it was correct but deeply embarrassing for CEOPS, Gamble, TM, Mitchell, and all the rest.
And that someone, somewhere has leant on them to correct it.

I bet that lots of people have taken lots of screen shots, so trying to cover it up is going to be fruitless, and incriminatory

(I can't help thinking back to the work we all did on the Last Photo and the altered EXIF metadata ! Photo taken on 29/4/7, changed to 3/5/7
Which fits neatly with this page on 30/4/7)

7.5.4 Disclosures which have no date or an unreliable date

Where an internet disclosure is relevant for examination but does not give any explicit indication of the publication date in the text of the disclosure, or if an applicant has shown that a given date is unreliable, the examiner may try to obtain further evidence to establish or confirm the publication date. Specifically, he may consider using the following information:

(a)
Information relating to a web page available from an internet archiving service. The most prominent such service is the Internet Archive accessible through the so-called "Wayback Machine" ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] The fact that the Internet Archive is incomplete does not detract from the credibility of the data it does archive. It is also noted that legal disclaimers relating to the accuracy of any supplied information are routinely used on websites (even respected sources of information such as Espacenet or IEEE), and these disclaimers should not be taken to reflect negatively on the websites' actual accuracy.

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

@ Tony Bennett

As regards your follow up questions you've made incorrect assumptions about what I've said. For example 
this:

You say that archive.org COULD have picked up this page if the creator had somehow made that link public

I didn't say that at all. I'm very careful about what I say, very precise, and in saying that you've put words in 
my mouth. I made no comment about archive.org AT ALL, I explained how crawlers work.

I will try and clarify in answering this question:

Would it be impossible for archive.org/Wayback Machine or any other web crawler to have 'found' the 
Madeleine page on CEOP's website, if it was just a 'dummy' URL, known only by one or two or a few people?

It is impossible for a crawler to access a page if it doesn't know it's there. There are two ways for a crawler 
to know a web page exists:

1) The crawler is "told" about the web page, in other words the page is submitted to the crawler.
2) There is a hyperlink to the page somewhere on the Internet that the crawler follows.

It therefore follows that if neither of those two actions have taken place a crawler cannot know a page is 
there.

Are you saying that absolutely could not be done accidentally? 

It cannot be done accidentally. My points 1 and 2 above cover this.

And is it possible that, say, one of those working on the 'dummy' page could have made the page 'go live' 
without the others knowing?

It's possible that someone working on the page carried out either of my points 1 and 2 above. Note though,  
that's not an accident, it has to be done on purpose.

It's unlikely in the scenario we're talking about that someone submitted the web page to a crawler, so to stick 
with just option 2, the hyperlink option, someone could have put a link to the page somewhere on the 
Internet and then a crawler could find it.

I make no claims in knowing how the Wayback Machine worked back in 2007, but I will explain how Google, 
for example, works as that might help. Currently Google spiders the whole of the Internet once every two 
hours. So if I put a hyperlink to a page on this forum, for example, in a matter of hours Google's bot will 
have found it and will have followed the link.

Back in 2007, however, it was a very different matter, it could take a few weeks for Google to find a new 
hyperlink because it took Google several weeks to spider the whole of the Internet.

How often Wayback Machine's crawlers scanned the whole of the Internet in 2007 I don't know, but I think it's 
fair to say it would not be as often as Google's bot, Google having always been at the forefront of such 
technology.

It is highly unlikely therefore, though not impossible, that someone hyperlinked to the CEOP page in question 
just at the moment Wayback Machine's crawler happened to visit.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Joss wrote:From my understanding of verifying info. from the WBM if used in litigation a judge could or not allow that information in a trial if someone from WBM signs an affidavit that it is true & correct info. Then is still up to the judge to accept it or not depending on what Circuit Court it will be used in. And what are the chances now of someone from WBM verifying this info. and standing by their initial email?
So IMO i don't really see this going anywhere, but it would still be good to get the reasons for what has happened.
I often think if people in the general public hadn't donated any money to this case, where would the McC's have stood then? I would never donate money to such a case until it is absolutely certain and proven the parents had nothing to do with such a case, because as we know the stats. for parental or family involvement in missing child cases is very high. If the McC's never had all that money from the good public that donated they would never of been able to set up their "fighting" fund to cause such misery to people that had an alternate view about what happened. Once it has been properly established that parents are indeed innocent then people could donate for any ongoing searches.
There are the police & other resources that are Govt. funded to help with these cases anyway. All IMO.

Don't forget their association with multi-millionnaires Edward Smethurst and Brian Kennedy.

Yes, who from what i have read are associated with Freemasons, so i guess that says it all. So suspicious the tons of money, millions, poured into this one case alone.

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

Poster:	EarthFurst	Date:	Feb 12, 2015 1:16pm
Forum:	[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	Subject:	Wayback ERROR: trying to visit specific wayback redirects to wayback of another date

Occasionally I've encountered a Wayback error. Error happens when I try to view a recent wayback of a webpage, but instead get redirected to another wayback from months earlier (instead of the recent wayback I clicked on).

***
And now there is a new, but similar error. Error happens when I click on an older wayback, but instead get redirected to a more recent wayback.

Example: Was at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and clicked succesfully on wayback for February 10.

I then did a wayback of the same webapge ( [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ) {on Feb 12},
but now when I try to view archive for Feb 10 (ten), the Wayback Machine shows me the archive for Feb 12 (twelve) instead.

***
EDIT: Similar to first error at top of post. Going to
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
and I click on "February 10, 2015." wayback link (currently latest wayback), but get shown 2015 JANUARY 29 wayback instead. (My highlighting)


This post was modified by EarthFurst on 2015-02-12 21:16:04

If WBM is so unreliable i doubt it would be accepted at all by any judge in a court case, but seeing as it has been used a lot of times in legal cases i would think WBM is pretty reliable with its information.

@ BlueBag

Web crawlers might work that way, they also might work a different way.

No, web crawlers can only work one way.

The mccann.html file may have been visible to the web crawler for some reason - it might have been 
accidently published for some reason.

It cannot be published accidentally. Someone would have to publish it.

who knows what a web crawler is capable of seeing? Unsecured objects in the folder containing the webpage?

The only things a crawler sees in a folder are pages that are visible to it and the elements of that page.
For example, a photo on a page links to the photo on the web server in order to be visible, so the crawler 
follows that link to the photo.

Any other photos on the server which are not on the web page are unknown to the crawler.

Crawlers don't guess, they follow links, it's very simple.

I have masses of stuff on my web host, sitting "behind" my public website - photos, videos, all sorts of personal things that have sat there for 
years, that I've uploaded in order to show family and friends. None of those things are secured in any way, no 
security is required, they are not visible on the Internet for one very simple reason, there is no link to them, 
so no crawler knows about them.

PeterMac wrote:I find the alterations being made more sinister than the original.
If this were just an innocent artefact they would have left it, and given the explanation
If they have changed it - and I am not tecchie enough to know - this suggests that it was correct but deeply embarrassing for CEOPS, Gamble, TM, Mitchell, and all the rest.
And that someone, somewhere has leant on them to correct it.

I bet that lots of people have taken lots of screen shots, so trying to cover it up is going to be fruitless, and incriminatory

(I can't help thinking back to the work we all did on the Last Photo and the altered EXIF metadata !   Photo taken on 29/4/7, changed to 3/5/7
Which fits neatly with this page on 30/4/7)

I agree PeterMac, why mess with it when they could of explained it all about why it did what it did? That just looks suspicious IMO.