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

by Guest 20.06.15 16:39

Syn wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Syn wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Syn wrote:
Richard D. Hall wrote:In order to understand what the WBM does, it is necessary to have a print out of their servers source code, which was running on 30 April 2007. This is something that WBM probably have archived somewhere and could look at. As far as I am aware nobody other than them have visibility of this code, therefore only they know exactly (and I mean EXACTLY) how their crawler functions. If you were to get the code and do a code walkthrough I suspect the code will show that their systems seeks out new webpages, and newly updated webpages. When it finds a new webpage (such as mccann.html) on the ceop website, it will invoke code to copy that page onto a folder on its server. In order to copy the new file it will have a function to create the new folder. This function I am sure will use the systems real time clock to construct the folder name based on the current time and day. Once the folder is made on their server, the file is then copied. Their system also ammends the file by adding a date and time stamp within the file and also some other information it might need at a later time. My description here is a general one because I do not have a copy of their source code. I think it is unlikely that a walkthrough of their source code would reveal that it is possible to create a folder with a date which pre-dates the date when a new file is discovered.

/**
* Construct and initialize structure from a 14-digit String timestamp. If
* the argument is too short, or specifies an invalid timestamp, cleanup
* will be attempted to create the earliest legal timestamp given the input.
* @param dateStr from which to set date
*/
public Timestamp(final String dateStr) {
setDate(dateStrToDate(dateStr));

full source here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I'm a professional java programmer with 15 years java experience.

You've told us nothing here except what the method comment says.

How does this relate to the issue at hand?
Wayback appends java into the html during archival. The above code calculates date and timestamp.
Yes, so what?

How does that relate to the issue at hand?
Wayback has in the past had issues using java method as described below.

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

Back laters :)

Again so what?

How does this relate to the issue at hand?

And this software is openwayback.

That's publicly available software to interrogate The Wayback Machine.

This isn't the way back machine or their crawling software.

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

by Guest 20.06.15 16:42

If I were KH, with this mess slowly gurgitating to the surface, I'd get back on my bike & cycle straight back to Scotland

by Syn 20.06.15 16:57

BlueBag wrote:
Syn wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Syn wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Syn wrote:
Richard D. Hall wrote:In order to understand what the WBM does, it is necessary to have a print out of their servers source code, which was running on 30 April 2007. This is something that WBM probably have archived somewhere and could look at. As far as I am aware nobody other than them have visibility of this code, therefore only they know exactly (and I mean EXACTLY) how their crawler functions. If you were to get the code and do a code walkthrough I suspect the code will show that their systems seeks out new webpages, and newly updated webpages. When it finds a new webpage (such as mccann.html) on the ceop website, it will invoke code to copy that page onto a folder on its server. In order to copy the new file it will have a function to create the new folder. This function I am sure will use the systems real time clock to construct the folder name based on the current time and day. Once the folder is made on their server, the file is then copied. Their system also ammends the file by adding a date and time stamp within the file and also some other information it might need at a later time. My description here is a general one because I do not have a copy of their source code. I think it is unlikely that a walkthrough of their source code would reveal that it is possible to create a folder with a date which pre-dates the date when a new file is discovered.

/**
* Construct and initialize structure from a 14-digit String timestamp. If
* the argument is too short, or specifies an invalid timestamp, cleanup
* will be attempted to create the earliest legal timestamp given the input.
* @param dateStr from which to set date
*/
public Timestamp(final String dateStr) {
setDate(dateStrToDate(dateStr));

full source here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I'm a professional java programmer with 15 years java experience.

You've told us nothing here except what the method comment says.

How does this relate to the issue at hand?
Wayback appends java into the html during archival. The above code calculates date and timestamp.
Yes, so what?

How does that relate to the issue at hand?
Wayback has in the past had issues using java method as described below.

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

Back laters :)
Again so what?

How does this relate to the issue at hand?

And this software is openwayback.

That's publicly available software to interrogate The Wayback Machine.

This isn't the way back machine or their crawling software.

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

I know that, thought you or others might want to have a go at some interrogation for yourselves.

And the timestamp.java code posted earlier is Wayback's code and the screenshot explaining problems they have had using the java method is also from Wayback Machine

:)

Looks like you are so desperate for this to be a conspiracy that you have forgotten that GA asked for assistance from CEOP on 7th May and they went over on the 8th, Press Release and appeal on the 9th from both CEOP and VirtualGlobalTaskForce and then MSM picked it up on the 10th.

So is GA in on this conspiracy then? I think not.

Wayback has admitted there was an issue and at the moment their investigations show that the 30/04 mccann page in question was actually archived on 31st July and the Home page index.asp that was 30/04 was actually archived on 7th October which explains totally why we were seeing News articles from October

Simple As. WB code f**ked up somewhere and they are now trying to fix it. According to TB they have said they will make a statement when the issue has been resolved.

Incidentally Was the 'anti' #mccann author of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in on this conspiracy too? Note the 01/05/2007 date

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

by rustyjames 20.06.15 17:00

BlueBag wrote:
I disagree with the simplification of folders being created containing snapshots of the site.
I don't think anyone said that.

It is snap shots of bits of the site though.

The BBC website that I showed earlier is a good one to pick it apart - and the time stamp was 100% accurate because the BBC page had the same time embedded in it's top news item.

I agree, but there were previous comments that the URL - e.g [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] indicated that a "20070430115803" folder had been created.

All that URL does is drive a search into the backend store to render an appropriate page for that date/time. You can put any date/time into that URL and it will render the closest content it can.

What is more interesting than the frontend presentation is what is in the backend that makes the WBM believe that it was crawled at that date/time.

by notlongnow 20.06.15 17:01

For someone who still struggles with getting there phone to work properly,this is all a foreign language to me.

I have no clue whether it is a glitch or was done on that date.

What is interesting though,is out of all the days since the dawning of computers it could have glitched on ,it happened to be that day.

by lj 20.06.15 17:29

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ BlueBag

You're working hard on this aren't you.

How rude.

As I said originally, Tony Bennett asked a question and because I knew the answer I signed up to answer him.

I also took the time and trouble to try and explain to you how web crawlers work as well.

If Tony, or anyone else who is civil, has any further questions, I will try and help.

Any more rudeness and I'm gone, I don't have to put up with that when my only motivation was to try and help answer a question because it's a subject I happen to know a lot about.
@ Nuala I fully agree - BlueBag had overstepped the mark with his response to you.

Speaking personally, I am grateful for all responses that help us to shed further light on this 'CEOPGate' mystery, and I thank you again for intervening.

I think however that claim and counter-claim by 'tecchies' must be tested.

In a nutshell, you said that web-crawlers could not 'find' dummy web pages that folk were workng on, but had not yet 'gone live' yet - which you said meant that there was as yet no 'hyperlink'.

You have probably seen the quote I gave from 'Resistor', timed at 11.37, from another forum, where he says that some search engines can pick up pages which do not have hyperlinks.

Is he plain wrong about that?
I am suspicious of "new" members signing up to put us right on a hot topic.. we've had two in the last 24 hours.

Syn is a regular poster on MCF

by Joss 20.06.15 17:31

notlongnow wrote:For someone who still struggles with getting there phone to work properly,this is all a foreign language to me.

I have no clue whether it is a glitch or was done on that date.

What is interesting though,is out of all the days since the dawning of computers it could have glitched on ,it happened to be that day.

Yeah, that's some coincidence alright!

by Gaggzy 20.06.15 17:36

notlongnow wrote:For someone who still struggles with getting there phone to work properly,this is all a foreign language to me.

I have no clue whether it is a glitch or was done on that date.

What is interesting though,is out of all the days since the dawning of computers it could have glitched on ,it happened to be that day.

.... and relating to the McCanns.

Cadaver odour detected on Kate McCann's clothes.
She handled loads of corpses before the holiday.

Blood dog found blood in apartment behind sofa and on walls.
Madeleine cut her leg / had a nosebleed.

A previously infallible Wayback Machine finds a file advertising a missing Madeleine THREE days before alleged abduction.
Oh, it's a 'glitch.'

Etc, etc, etc, etc.

'Oh, silly us, eh? That explains it all. Okay, ladies and gentlemen. Move along now. There's nothing to see. Come on, move along.'

by lj 20.06.15 17:37

SixMillionQuid wrote:Just chiming in briefly.

1. If this was a 'glitch' why would an automated system pick a precise date time of 30/04/2007 11:58:03? It makes no sense to make up a date before the the web page became accessible to a webcrawler.

2. If this was a 'glitch' then other pages archived around the same time would show similar dates and times. Wayback should be able to confirm this.

Exactly

by lj 20.06.15 17:44

Portia wrote:If I were KH, with this mess slowly gurgitating to the surface, I'd get back on my bike & cycle straight back to Scotland

She better get one like these and go a bit further:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by lj 20.06.15 17:46

Gaggzy wrote:
notlongnow wrote:For someone who still struggles with getting there phone to work properly,this is all a foreign language to me.

I have no clue whether it is a glitch or was done on that date.

What is interesting though,is out of all the days since the dawning of computers it could have glitched on ,it happened to be that day.

.... and relating to the McCanns.

Cadaver odour detected on Kate McCann's clothes.
She handled loads of corpses before the holiday.

Blood dog found blood in apartment behind sofa and on walls.
Madeleine cut her leg / had a nosebleed.

A previously infallible Wayback Machine finds a file advertising a missing Madeleine THREE days before alleged abduction.
Oh, it's a 'glitch.'

Etc, etc, etc, etc.

'Oh, silly us, eh? That explains it all. Okay, ladies and gentlemen. Move along now. There's nothing to see. Come on, move along.'

Maybe the wayback machine has a fancy for seabass too??

by **Tony Bennett** 20.06.15 17:51

Syn wrote:
Looks like you are so desperate for this to be a conspiracy that you have forgotten that GA asked for assistance from CEOP on 7th May and they went over on the 8th, Press Release and appeal on the 9th from both CEOP and VirtualGlobalTaskForce and then MSM picked it up on the 10th.

Wayback has admitted there was an issue and at the moment their investigations show that the 30/04 McCann page in question was actually archived on 31st July and the Home page index.asp that was 30/04 was actually archived on 7th October which explains totally why we were seeing News articles from October

Simple As. WB code f**ked up somewhere and they are now trying to fix it.

@ Syn Welcome to the forum, by the way.

I don't think anyone on the forum is 'desperate to believe this to be a conspiracy'.

We already know what we know about what happened to Madeleine - and we are getting to know more and more as time goes on.

The plain fact is that active members here like to tease out, sometimes robustly, what is true about this case and what is not.

We are all faced with a plain statement on a document by archive.org, supported initially by their 'Office Manager', that a 'Madeleine' html page was created on or before 11.58am on 30 April 2007.

None of us either want this to be true, or not to be true, we simply want to know the truth.

It would seem that even Wayback/archive.org don't know what the truth is, since they've now had the best part of 4 days to tell us what the problem is.

The number of contradictory explanations from one side or the other seems to be developing exponentially.

Speaking I think for most of us here, we won't mind in the least if we ever get complete proof that this was a 'glitch'/mistake/error.

All the same, if (as you say) their system is capable of making such an obvious multiple series of errors in searching this one website (CEOP), how many errors has it made in interrogating all the other thousands of websites it searches?

by **Jill Havern** 20.06.15 17:56

Syn wrote:Incidentally Was the 'anti' #mccann author of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in on this conspiracy too? Note the 01/05/2007 date

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

That's my blog!

by MRNOODLES 20.06.15 18:15

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Syn wrote:Incidentally Was the 'anti' #mccann author of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in on this conspiracy too? Note the 01/05/2007 date

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

That's my blog!

by **Jill Havern** 20.06.15 18:21

MRNOODLES wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Syn wrote:Incidentally Was the 'anti' #mccann author of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in on this conspiracy too? Note the 01/05/2007 date

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

That's my blog!

Nor did I! clown

by worriedmum 20.06.15 18:26

Didn't some-one forward this to the police? Any reply?

by Syn 20.06.15 18:27

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Syn wrote:Incidentally Was the 'anti' #mccann author of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in on this conspiracy too? Note the 01/05/2007 date

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

That's my blog!

lol, so it is, I think you are safe though, we all know you don't have a crystal ball and are not 'in on it' :) Just shows how even the mighty Google in this case can screw up though :) I checked WB at the time and WB hadn't crawled that page but now has on the 17th June.

by Syn 20.06.15 18:40

Tony Bennett wrote:
Syn wrote:
Looks like you are so desperate for this to be a conspiracy that you have forgotten that GA asked for assistance from CEOP on 7th May and they went over on the 8th, Press Release and appeal on the 9th from both CEOP and VirtualGlobalTaskForce and then MSM picked it up on the 10th.

Wayback has admitted there was an issue and at the moment their investigations show that the 30/04 McCann page in question was actually archived on 31st July and the Home page index.asp that was 30/04 was actually archived on 7th October which explains totally why we were seeing News articles from October

Simple As. WB code f**ked up somewhere and they are now trying to fix it.
@ Syn Welcome to the forum, by the way.

I don't think anyone on the forum is 'desperate to believe this to be a conspiracy'.

We already know what we know about what happened to Madeleine - and we are getting to know more and more as time goes on.

The plain fact is that active members here like to tease out, sometimes robustly, what is true about this case and what is not.

We are all faced with a plain statement on a document by archive.org, supported initially by their 'Office Manager', that a 'Madeleine' html page was created on or before 11.58am on 30 April 2007.

None of us either want this to be true, or not to be true, we simply want to know the truth.

It would seem that even Wayback/archive.org don't know what the truth is, since they've now had the best part of 4 days to tell us what the problem is.

The number of contradictory explanations from one side or the other seems to be developing exponentially.

Speaking I think for most of us here, we won't mind in the least if we ever get complete proof that this was a 'glitch'/mistake/error.

All the same, if (as you say) their system is capable of making such an obvious multiple series of errors in searching this one website (CEOP), how many errors has it made in interrogating all the other thousands of websites it searches?

Thanks for the welcome :)

I don't doubt for a second that there will be a great number of websites that have suffered the same anomaly during archiving over the years. Trying to find them though, that would be the fun bit, like looking for a needle in a haystack. We have a point of reference to compare against with the McCann case, a date of 03/05/2007. Would need a similar situation where someone reported something happened on a specific date and could then check the various results referencing the incident against the respective wayback archives for each website where it is referenced. Could take forever and a day :/

by Guest 20.06.15 18:40

What a relief: so you don't have to worry about anything you ever entrust to the Net ever getting lost!

You just have to approach the likes of WB to have it retrieved

Which raises the question who owns them

Where oh where is lord Snowdon when we need him

by Syn 20.06.15 18:41

lj wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ BlueBag

You're working hard on this aren't you.

How rude.

As I said originally, Tony Bennett asked a question and because I knew the answer I signed up to answer him.

I also took the time and trouble to try and explain to you how web crawlers work as well.

If Tony, or anyone else who is civil, has any further questions, I will try and help.

Any more rudeness and I'm gone, I don't have to put up with that when my only motivation was to try and help answer a question because it's a subject I happen to know a lot about.
@ Nuala I fully agree - BlueBag had overstepped the mark with his response to you.

Speaking personally, I am grateful for all responses that help us to shed further light on this 'CEOPGate' mystery, and I thank you again for intervening.

I think however that claim and counter-claim by 'tecchies' must be tested.

In a nutshell, you said that web-crawlers could not 'find' dummy web pages that folk were workng on, but had not yet 'gone live' yet - which you said meant that there was as yet no 'hyperlink'.

You have probably seen the quote I gave from 'Resistor', timed at 11.37, from another forum, where he says that some search engines can pick up pages which do not have hyperlinks.

Is he plain wrong about that?
I am suspicious of "new" members signing up to put us right on a hot topic.. we've had two in the last 24 hours.
Syn is a regular poster on MCF

Thanks for the vouch lj :)

by HKP 20.06.15 19:12

So, in essence what will this do for archive.com who have had their 'captures' used in litigation cases. What's the point of Wayback if it actually recalls stuff with wrong information relating to the dates.

by TheTruthWillOut 20.06.15 19:15

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Syn wrote:Incidentally Was the 'anti' #mccann author of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in on this conspiracy too? Note the 01/05/2007 date

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

That's my blog!

Just an aside......why is McCann spelled with just one n in the URL?

by suzysu 20.06.15 19:15

In summary....

This could be huge, yes?

The straw that finally blows the whole thing out of the water?

.....oh rats. Didn't we think the same thing when the dogs alerted? When the statements didn't match? When Madeleine's father had to return to the UK before they could dredge up a smidge of her dna? When etc etc....

What on (or under the) Earth has to come to light before this case is finally investigated properly? A body with a note attached to it saying 'it's my parents wot dunnit'?

by cloak'ndagger 20.06.15 19:17

HKP wrote:So, in essence what will this do for archive.com who have had their 'captures' used in litigation cases. What's the point of Wayback if it actually recalls stuff with wrong information relating to the dates.

It is only when it relates to the McCann that these unfortunate glitches occur.. ..am sure there is no evidence of a similar other single glitch titter

by **Jill Havern** 20.06.15 19:19

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Syn wrote:Incidentally Was the 'anti' #mccann author of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in on this conspiracy too? Note the 01/05/2007 date

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

That's my blog!

Just an aside......why is McCann spelled with just one n in the URL?

I didn't check it properly before I hit the send button blushing1

by TheTruthWillOut 20.06.15 19:22

Whoops!

by whodunnit 20.06.15 19:33

Hi. I'm fairly new to the case having begun a closer study back in November but I have been following the WBM saga with keen interest. My comments on #mccann #waybackmachine can be found on twitter @MollyeWasADame

I've tried to register here at CMOMM in the past but for whatever reason my membership was not approved.

No matter. I wanted to join this discussion today because while I am by no means an expert, a couple of years ago I had reason to explore WBM extensively after I had deleted a blog about a subject I thought I was done with forever. In any case, what I found was an accurate archive. Sometimes the image files were broken and didn't show up on pages. Others were perfectly clear. Pingbacks---links from later blog posts which referred back to earlier posts---were always reliable. Links in my blogroll led to the newest LIVE versions of those wepages.* In other words, links in the static archive DO update to the future. When I looked at the CEOP index page with an October link my first thought was not a mistake or prescience but that the link updated automatically to the next available date. It actually tells you the archived pages will do this right in the WBM FAQ.

What did not show up on my blog archive were unpublished posts left in the queue of my dashboard.

However, from the start I do not believe this page was an unpublished dummy page. In my opinion, it was published and an as yet undiscovered or un-captured and subsequently deleted link led to it from the home page. What is unquestionable in my mind is the mccann.html page existed on April 30, 2007. In my opinion, this bolsters suspicions backed by circumstantial evidence that something happened to poor little Madeleine earlier in the holiday. I am unwilling to posit that it was all a preplanned hoax. Rather, in my opinion, something happened to the child a webpage was published by crony Gamble with a view to a profitable 'campaign' and for whatever reason it was decided that all the ducks weren't in a row yet so the page was whooshed back behind the curtain until the proper time.

Thanks for listening.

by lj 20.06.15 19:35

Syn wrote:
lj wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ BlueBag

You're working hard on this aren't you.

How rude.

As I said originally, Tony Bennett asked a question and because I knew the answer I signed up to answer him.

I also took the time and trouble to try and explain to you how web crawlers work as well.

If Tony, or anyone else who is civil, has any further questions, I will try and help.

Any more rudeness and I'm gone, I don't have to put up with that when my only motivation was to try and help answer a question because it's a subject I happen to know a lot about.
@ Nuala I fully agree - BlueBag had overstepped the mark with his response to you.

Speaking personally, I am grateful for all responses that help us to shed further light on this 'CEOPGate' mystery, and I thank you again for intervening.

I think however that claim and counter-claim by 'tecchies' must be tested.

In a nutshell, you said that web-crawlers could not 'find' dummy web pages that folk were workng on, but had not yet 'gone live' yet - which you said meant that there was as yet no 'hyperlink'.

You have probably seen the quote I gave from 'Resistor', timed at 11.37, from another forum, where he says that some search engines can pick up pages which do not have hyperlinks.

Is he plain wrong about that?
I am suspicious of "new" members signing up to put us right on a hot topic.. we've had two in the last 24 hours.
Syn is a regular poster on MCF
Thanks for the vouch lj :)

you're welcome, and yes you are welcome!
friends

by Guest 20.06.15 19:44

Syn wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Syn wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Syn wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Syn wrote:
Richard D. Hall wrote:In order to understand what the WBM does, it is necessary to have a print out of their servers source code, which was running on 30 April 2007. This is something that WBM probably have archived somewhere and could look at. As far as I am aware nobody other than them have visibility of this code, therefore only they know exactly (and I mean EXACTLY) how their crawler functions. If you were to get the code and do a code walkthrough I suspect the code will show that their systems seeks out new webpages, and newly updated webpages. When it finds a new webpage (such as mccann.html) on the ceop website, it will invoke code to copy that page onto a folder on its server. In order to copy the new file it will have a function to create the new folder. This function I am sure will use the systems real time clock to construct the folder name based on the current time and day. Once the folder is made on their server, the file is then copied. Their system also ammends the file by adding a date and time stamp within the file and also some other information it might need at a later time. My description here is a general one because I do not have a copy of their source code. I think it is unlikely that a walkthrough of their source code would reveal that it is possible to create a folder with a date which pre-dates the date when a new file is discovered.

/**
* Construct and initialize structure from a 14-digit String timestamp. If
* the argument is too short, or specifies an invalid timestamp, cleanup
* will be attempted to create the earliest legal timestamp given the input.
* @param dateStr from which to set date
*/
public Timestamp(final String dateStr) {
setDate(dateStrToDate(dateStr));

full source here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I'm a professional java programmer with 15 years java experience.

You've told us nothing here except what the method comment says.

How does this relate to the issue at hand?
Wayback appends java into the html during archival. The above code calculates date and timestamp.
Yes, so what?

How does that relate to the issue at hand?
Wayback has in the past had issues using java method as described below.

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

Back laters :)
Again so what?

How does this relate to the issue at hand?

And this software is openwayback.

That's publicly available software to interrogate The Wayback Machine.

This isn't the way back machine or their crawling software.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I know that, thought you or others might want to have a go at some interrogation for yourselves.

And the timestamp.java code posted earlier is Wayback's code and the screenshot explaining problems they have had using the java method is also from Wayback Machine

:)

Looks like you are so desperate for this to be a conspiracy that you have forgotten that GA asked for assistance from CEOP on 7th May and they went over on the 8th, Press Release and appeal on the 9th from both CEOP and VirtualGlobalTaskForce and then MSM picked it up on the 10th.

So is GA in on this conspiracy then? I think not.

Wayback has admitted there was an issue and at the moment their investigations show that the 30/04 mccann page in question was actually archived on 31st July and the Home page index.asp that was 30/04 was actually archived on 7th October which explains totally why we were seeing News articles from October

Simple As. WB code f**ked up somewhere and they are now trying to fix it. According to TB they have said they will make a statement when the issue has been resolved.

Incidentally Was the 'anti' #mccann author of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in on this conspiracy too? Note the 01/05/2007 date

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

I know that, thought you or others might want to have a go at some interrogation for yourselves.

I saw your 100% BS.

But who are you to register as a new member and tell us "move along"?

by whodunnit 20.06.15 20:01

Pardon me for posting again so soon but I just had to quote this post from another site and provide an answer straight from the FAQ of WMB, which should settle the matter once and for all:

WLBTS Today at 4:31 pm

chirpyinsect wrote:
So if the crawl date says 5apr the latest news section cannot contain news from after that date? Do I understand correctly?

It's no more possible than if you went on to the BBC news page today and found news headlines from 2017.

From the FAQ
How did I end up on the live version of a site? or I clicked on X date, but now I am on Y date, how is that possible?
Not every date for every site archived is 100% complete. When you are surfing an incomplete archived site the Wayback Machine will grab the closest available date to the one you are in for the links that are missing. In the event that we do not have the link archived at all, the Wayback Machine will look for the link on the live web and grab it if available. Pay attention to the date code embedded in the archived url. This is the list of numbers in the middle; it translates as yyyymmddhhmmss. For example in this url [link removed because this site will not allow guests to post external links. see FAQ for example link provided] the date the site was crawled was Feb 29, 2000 at 12:33 and 40 seconds.

~~

Put simply, at the very least WLBTS is flat wrong.