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

[size=49]Does this not answer our questions?[/size]

by suzysu 20.06.15 21:10

BlueBag wrote:
"I will posit that a lot of techies are coming out of the woodwork to debunk this discovery"

Yes.

They're not bothered about other Madeleine issues.

But they signed up to tell us all we're wrong on this issue.

What a game.

Agree. Let's cut to the chase.

by SixMillionQuid 20.06.15 21:11

Here's a CEOP capture from 27 April 2007.

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

Nothing wrong with the dates for the news updates on right side of the page - it all corresponds with the time stamp of:

2007 - 04 - 27 11:35:09

So why is there a problem with the 30 April 2007 page?

by suzysu 20.06.15 21:12

SixMillionQuid wrote:Here's a CEOP capture from 27 April 2007.

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

Nothing wrong with the dates for the news updates on right side of the page - it all corresponds with the time stamp of:

2007 - 04 - 27 11:35:09

So why is there a problem with the 30 April 2007 page?

There isn't.

by Guest 20.06.15 21:14

SixMillionQuid wrote:Here's a CEOP capture from 27 April 2007.

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

Nothing wrong with the dates for the news updates on right side of the page - it all corresponds with the time stamp of:

2007 - 04 - 27 11:35:09

So why is there a problem with the 30 April 2007 page?

If this is a problem there must be hundreds if not thousands of misfiled pages from the same day...

Easy for WMB to demonstrate?

by whodunnit 20.06.15 21:15

"Then that is 100% at odds with the reply they allegedly sent to Isabel McFadden when the office manager claimed the date was wrong. Both version s cannot be right so which one is it?"

This reply came AFTER WBM had been informed of the high profile 'sensitivity' of this case which renders all responses thereafter not credible/backside covering.

In addition, going by the dates in Mr. Butler's reply to her I have a feeling HiDeHo's inquiry involved mainly the index page---how and by whom was this page brought to her attention on the day after the April 30 maddie.html discovery?---with it's links updated to October. I have a feeling there was some confusion on Mr. Butler's part as to which page/s were in question.

by suzysu 20.06.15 21:18

BlueBag wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:Here's a CEOP capture from 27 April 2007.

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

Nothing wrong with the dates for the news updates on right side of the page - it all corresponds with the time stamp of:

2007 - 04 - 27 11:35:09

So why is there a problem with the 30 April 2007 page?
If this is a problem there must be hundreds if not thousands of misfiled pages from the same day...

Easy for WMB to demonstrate?

Indeed. A hard call for them. Their credibility, or their compliance in a cover-up? Who the heck is behind this cover up??

by SixMillionQuid 20.06.15 21:18

suzysu wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:Here's a CEOP capture from 27 April 2007.

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

Nothing wrong with the dates for the news updates on right side of the page - it all corresponds with the time stamp of:

2007 - 04 - 27 11:35:09

So why is there a problem with the 30 April 2007 page?
There isn't.

That's what I was thinking. I can't think of any software or hardware 'glitch' that can mysteriously create some fictional date when it has trouble resolving one.

And I noticed that when you hover your mouse over the blue right arrow Wayback is still referencing the 11:58:03 Apr, 30 2007 page. So as far as I'm concerned there was no software or hardware glitch.

by suzysu 20.06.15 21:21

SixMillionQuid wrote:
suzysu wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:Here's a CEOP capture from 27 April 2007.

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

Nothing wrong with the dates for the news updates on right side of the page - it all corresponds with the time stamp of:

2007 - 04 - 27 11:35:09

So why is there a problem with the 30 April 2007 page?
There isn't.
That's what I was thinking. I can't think of any software or hardware 'glitch' that can mysteriously create some fictional date when it has trouble resolving one.

And I noticed that when you hover your mouse over the blue right arrow Wayback is still referencing the 11:58:03 Apr, 30 2007 page. So as far as I'm concerned there was no software or hardware glitch.

I think this is BIG.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.06.15 21:25

SixMillionQuid wrote:
And I noticed that when you hover your mouse over the blue right arrow Wayback is still referencing the 11:58:03 Apr, 30 2007 page. So as far as I'm concerned there was no software or hardware glitch.

This thread gets better and better - much better than watching all those dreary TV crime series like 'Inspector Morse'.

To think that we may have cracked the matter by hovering a mouse over an arrow!

(Or not)

by HKP 20.06.15 21:28

Whodunnit at 8.01 has pointed out that there own FAQs state the pages can change and also this:-[size=49]Pay attention to the date code embedded in the archived url. This is the list of numbers in the middle; it translates as yyyymmddhhmmss.[/size]

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

by Guest 20.06.15 21:29

I will only be happy if WMB can show they same error for other pages (lots of them) on that date and others.

If it's just this one page they can take a jump..

by suzysu 20.06.15 21:38

BlueBag wrote:I will only be happy if WMB can show they same error for other pages (lots of them) on that date and others.

If it's just this one page they can take a jump..

I wouldn't mind betting that there aren't any more 'errors'.

Who is going to take this up?

I, and I'm sure not I'm not the only one, feel like I'm crying in the wilderness.

Who is going to take this up?

The UK police don't seem to be too willing. Who else is going to look at this?

by suzysu 20.06.15 21:39

BlueBag wrote:I will only be happy if WMB can show they same error for other pages (lots of them) on that date and others.

If it's just this one page they can take a jump..

I wouldn't mind betting that there aren't any more 'errors'.

Who is going to take this up?

I, and I'm sure not I'm not the only one, feel like I'm crying in the wilderness.

Who is going to take this up?

The UK police don't seem to be too willing. Who else is going to look at this?

by suzysu 20.06.15 21:40

Oops sorry. Finger stammer!

by SixMillionQuid 20.06.15 21:41

BlueBag wrote:I will only be happy if WMB can show they same error for other pages (lots of them) on that date and others.

If it's just this one page they can take a jump..

LOL

Here a Youtube. capture for 30 April 2007

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

The timestamp in the url is 2007 -04 -30 12:09:52

Can this be wrong too?

by Mo 20.06.15 21:46

Perhaps all this information could be sent to GA for his lawyers to look into - by the way, who advised GA to contact CEOP?

by SixMillionQuid 20.06.15 21:47

And one more from CNN on 30 April 2007. You can see the date at the top of the web page too

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

Timestamp of 2007 - 04 - 30 04:05:04

There's no way in hell this is wrong or a glitch.

by whodunnit 20.06.15 22:05

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] SixMillionQuid Today at 9:47 pm
And one more from CNN on 30 April 2007. You can see the date at the top of the web page too

[link to CNN removed because guest posters cannot post external links. See SixMillionQuid's post above]

Timestamp of 2007 - 04 - 30 04:05:04

There's no way in hell this is wrong or a glitch.

~~~

Now I invite everyone to to click on this CNN archive for April 30, 2007.

Look down to the heading 'Only On CNN'.

See the link entitled 'Interactive: Yikes, the bugs are back!' ?

Now click on it. What date do you see at the top of this archived page? Hint: May 18, 2007. This is the next available update to the link 'Yikes, the bugs are back!'

by whodunnit 20.06.15 22:09

Do it with any/all of the links contained in that archived page. Some have updates and some do not. Click on 'Buckets of Compassion Help Paint Schools' for instance and the next available archived update is May 1, 2007.

by whodunnit 20.06.15 22:11

Arrrgh I wish I could edit my posts.

Basically, THIS IS NOT A BUG IT'S A FEATURE.

by rustyjames 20.06.15 22:36

Syn wrote:I'm fobbing no-one off. You clearly do not understand that WB appends JAVA to the HTML whenever it archives a page

Example from 13/05/2007

//var __wm = (function(){
var wbPrefix = "/web/";
var wbCurrentUrl = "http://www.ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html";

Slightly pedantic, but I think if we are going to seriously talk about technology can we at least get the language correct - this is JavaScript / ECMAScript that is added and not Java. Other than the name sounding similar and involving programming there is virtually nothing in common between the two.

by **PeterMac** 20.06.15 22:47

BlueBag wrote:I will only be happy if WMB can show they same error for other pages (lots of them) on that date and others.
If it's just this one page they can take a jump..

In the same way that two TWO dogs with impeccable records over 200 cases make the same mistake in the McCann case, no fewer than 14 TIMES
and then are sent to the USA to work for the FBI and send people to death row. . . . because they never make the same mistake again. Or before.

The McCanns, The Tapas 7, the extended family, Mitchell, Carter-Ruck, and Gamble live in a parallell universe, about eight inches (20 cm ! !) to the left of where everyone else is

by Doug D 20.06.15 22:58

Jeez, go out for a few hours and it takes all evening to catch up!

A few points I have picked up on though:

Seems to have been missed in todays frantic postings, but looks like another page that needs diverting/whooshing to me, as it again seems to show a McCann file in existence on 1^st May as well.

Whatsupdoc @ 1.14,

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

[size=32]Note[/size]
This calendar view maps the number of times [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] was crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated. More info in the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

………………………………………………………..

Syn @ 8.25,

‘All the information that shows GA asked CEOP to assist on the 7th May is referenced to PJfiles and Mccannfiles and MSN so I fail to see what your issue is.’

What has this got to do with the price of eggs? Why are you trying to pull GA into something that may or may not have happened on 30^th April?
GA being documented as asking for CEOP’s help on 7^th May is totally irrelevant.
………………………………………………………..

TB @ 9.05

‘Be very very careful of whatever he says’

I can only back up TB’s view.

As I posted this morning @ 11.05:

‘One of our old ‘friends’ has now jumped in on Candyfloss’ forum to categorically junk the theory & Resistor’s investigations, which to me lends credence to the whole story.’

WLBTS is certainly an intelligent & articulate poster, but, as was previously seen on here, his motives?

by whatsupdoc 20.06.15 23:03

rustyjames wrote:
Syn wrote:I'm fobbing no-one off. You clearly do not understand that WB appends JAVA to the HTML whenever it archives a page

Example from 13/05/2007

//var __wm = (function(){
var wbPrefix = "/web/";
var wbCurrentUrl = "http://www.ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html";

Slightly pedantic, but I think if we are going to seriously talk about technology can we at least get the language correct - this is JavaScript / ECMAScript that is added and not Java. Other than the name sounding similar and involving programming there is virtually nothing in common between the two.

That's very true rustyjames.

I've just tried the Youtube link mentioned above and WBM worked OK on 30th April @12.09.52.
I'm not convinced about a glitch.

This link...

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

by cloak'ndagger 20.06.15 23:13

whatsupdoc wrote:
rustyjames wrote:
Syn wrote:I'm fobbing no-one off. You clearly do not understand that WB appends JAVA to the HTML whenever it archives a page

Example from 13/05/2007

//var __wm = (function(){
var wbPrefix = "/web/";
var wbCurrentUrl = "http://www.ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html";

Slightly pedantic, but I think if we are going to seriously talk about technology can we at least get the language correct - this is JavaScript / ECMAScript that is added and not Java. Other than the name sounding similar and involving programming there is virtually nothing in common between the two.

That's very true rustyjames.

I've just tried the Youtube link mentioned above and WBM worked OK on 30th April @12.09.52.
I'm not convinced about a glitch.

This link...

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

Interesting . .so not lies by Steve Marsden so Ben ?

by lj 20.06.15 23:16

sallypelt wrote:I've brought this over from the other forum, as it puts the whole affair of WBM into perspective. There will be winners or losers no matter what the truth is.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Resistor Today at 8:59 pm

Then that is 100% at odds with the reply they allegedly sent to Isabel McFadden when the office manager claimed the date was wrong. Both version s cannot be right so which one is it?

Wayback are screwed if that date turn s out to be wrong. Gamble and the McCanns are screwed if it is not. Be interesting to see who gets thrown the wolves.

Yep, the technical aspects go way over my head, but the consequences are very clear and only can go one way or the other.

With already admitting to a "glitch" and altering the date (as I understand they did) any court proceeding they were expert witness in is now open for appeal, and wayback can expect some nice suits.

Unless of course the date was correct

pop2

by canada12 20.06.15 23:19

I'm posting this because I'm genuinely curious.

The page which started out this discussion was:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
in the WBM.

When the WBM tried to archive this page:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
in 2008, it archived a "Page Not Found" page.
That happened twice in 2008.
It tried for the last time on September 4, 2009, with the same result.

Apologies if I'm missing something but... if the April 30 page didn't exist when the WBM archived it, why didn't it return a "Page Not Found" page?

by lj 20.06.15 23:19

BlueBag wrote:I will only be happy if WMB can show they same error for other pages (lots of them) on that date and others.

If it's just this one page they can take a jump..

Now that I can understand, and I agree.

by whatsupdoc 20.06.15 23:23

To see the calendar use...

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

which adds the * after the date / time stamp. Hovering over the 30th April 2007 you can see the snapshot of 12.09.52

I've just tried the link from Roy Rovers on page 1 again and it's still working...including a pic of Madeleine when you hover and click on the snapshot...for 30th April 2007...

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

by whatsupdoc 20.06.15 23:30

canada12 wrote:I'm posting this because I'm genuinely curious.

The page which started out this discussion was:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
in the WBM.

When the WBM tried to archive this page:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
in 2008, it archived a "Page Not Found" page.
That happened twice in 2008.
It tried for the last time on September 4, 2009, with the same result.

Apologies if I'm missing something but... if the April 30 page didn't exist when the WBM archived it, why didn't it return a "Page Not Found" page?