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

by Syn 20.06.15 23:36

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.

----

PS.... I think it might be an innocent mistake. However I would like an explanation... and people signing up to post BS gets my back up and makes me wonder.

So I'm not bothered about other Madeleine issues then? A game? Really. You know bugger all about me and what I believe. Here are just some of my posts re the McCann debacle.

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

You also clearly did not read my Greptweet http://greptweet.com/u/syn0nymph/syn0nymph.txt (ignore the last few days worth as it has primarily been in relation to the 30/4 issue)

I am not a forumite by nature and have only every posted about the McCann case on twitter until recent months when I was invited to join MCF and I have been posting there regularly and now feel comfortable with forums. I decided to join this forum today as I could respond to the question about orphan files and how Wayback deals with them. You and I may disagree regarding the 30/04 issue but that does not give you the right to be derogatory or question my motives. I stand for justice for Madeleine, Goncalo and for Brenda. I will not stand by and stay silent when misinformation is being perpetuated such as in the case here regarding the 30/04 issue.

And now it is time for my bed. I bid you good night and sweet dreams :)

by cloak'ndagger 20.06.15 23:39

I can vouch for Syn.. .she may not be saying what we want to hear but she is an expert in the technological field.

by Guest 20.06.15 23:43

MRNOODLES wrote:May I ask a question (or two) re webcrawlers... forgive me if I sound thick.

Is the page source/ view element part of each web page able to be found by web crawlers?

Reason why I ask. Norwich City FC had a 'shirtgate' incident a few years back. The club intended to unveil their new football shirts on such and such date. But some bright spark a day of two before, had a good gander at the website's 'pagesource' and found pictures of the new shirt already on the site. Cut a long story short the chief exec accused this person of hacking, but it never came to anything because it came down to the web developers for being sloppy for storing them on the site early and viewing the page source is fair game to be viewed.

I sort of visualise it in my non techie brain as, normal website above ground, page source below ground. So therefore can these crawlers ferret out stuff below ground.

Sorry if that sounds a bit dense.

I am only 17 pages behind, so apologies if this has been done to death.

Given an Internet URL (address) I can often find out extra information that the web tekkies did not intend me to see. It depends on how lazy or how dumb the web developers were.

There are times I can find unpublished links, sub-directories, parent directories and more. If the tekkies have done their job properly, I get blocked on all of this.

Everything hinges on how well the site (CEOP 2007) was built and how well the site (WM 2007) was built.

PS. My opinion is that it is a WM weakness, rather than a CEOP cover-up.

But as I have explained, I am still 17 pages behind, with midnight fast approaching.

by whatsupdoc 20.06.15 23:48

cloak'ndagger wrote:I can vouch for Syn.. .she may not be saying what we want to hear but she is an expert in the technological field.

I'll second that. I know of syn0nymph from Twitter.

I don't think we should be knocking newcomers either.

by canada12 20.06.15 23:49

whatsupdoc wrote:
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?

When I checked the /mccann.html page a couple of days ago it was only viewable 30th April till the end of August 2007 on the calendar page.

Interesting. Well... you can click on 2008 now and see two instances of "Page Not Found", and in 2009 one instance of "Page Not Found."

by **Tony Bennett** 21.06.15 0:19

whatsupdoc wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:I can vouch for Syn.. .she may not be saying what we want to hear but she is an expert in the technological field.

I'll second that. I know of syn0nymph from Twitter.

'Syn0nymph' is Denise Thomson on Twitter - and all I know about her so far is that she has written (mostly on Twitter AFAIK) about the CATS file 19309 on Gerry McCann, and has made references to Jim Gamble in that connection. She has made certain claims about this. I am not sure how many have been substantiated, however.

I believe she may also be 'Pseudo Nym' on the 'Laid Bare' blog, who was the author of '20 FACTS ABOUT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE McCANN', recently featured on our forum. As she also writes on the 'Laid Bare' blog as 'Syn0nymph', and as the writing styles are very similar, I think it is a reasonable assumption that 'Syn', 'Syn0nymph' and 'Pseudo Nym' are all one and the same individual.

The '20 FACTS' leaflet had some good material in it, but on first scanning it I noted that 'Fact No. 6' about 'Smithman' was very inaccurate and, because of that, perpetuated the unsupported myth (IMO) that 'Smithman' really did see someone and that that someone was Gerry McCann.

I wrote a critique of 'Fact No. 6', here:

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

The author did not seem to be aware that Martin Smith soon resiled from his curious semi-identification of the man he said he saw as Gerry McCann - because the facts are that he has been co-operating fully with the McCann Team (and now Operation Grange) ever since December 2007. Indeed he has made public statements sympathising with the McCanns and urging the public to 'find the abductor'.

@ Syn If you are the author of the '20 FACTS' post, or have influence on whoever wrote it, please remove 'Fact No. 6', or at least re-write it so as not to give the impression that 'Smithman' is Gerry McCann. There is no simply no evidence whatsoever that Martin Smith did see Gerry McCann - and his claim to have seen anyone at all is doubtful

by whodunnit 21.06.15 0:37

lj Yesterday at 11:16 pm

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

~~

The dates are correct. Contrary to what some are trying to imply you do not need to be a software engineer to understand the basic operating procedures of the wayback machine any more than you need to be a mechanical engineer in order to operate an automobile. It truly is very simple. Attempts to confuse the issue notwithstanding, this basic fact remains unchanged: a mccann.html subpage of the CEOP website, with a picture of Madeleine McCann, a broken image file, an link to a .pdf file/poster [which automatically updated when the poster was added or changed later], and the text 'Help Find Madeleine Mccan' existed on the internet on April 30, 2007. Until someone from Wayback Machine can PROVE this capture was in error this fact HAS and will remain unchallenged.

by Just Askin 21.06.15 6:55

Is it just a coincidence that also on the 30th of April 2007 it is alleged that Barroso was shown a photograph of Madeleine McCann.

by aiyoyo 21.06.15 7:34

Having read the professionals (and laymen as well) opinions on this matter, I'm not an inch wiser if WMB's explanation that it was "glitch" holds true.

The fact that they gave two separate/different answers - an unmeasured one followed by a measured one after the seriousness of the situation and implication had been drawn to their attention, it seems (1) either they are very negligent in maintaining and monitoring accuracy or (2) they were not telling the truth. If this abnormality applies only to archiving of the CEOP server, it would be weird in extremity. Surely not again yet another one of the multitude of coincidences to do everything related to the McCanns.
If the "error" is something that is prevalent/rampant in their archiving structure/system that applies across the board - affecting some or all other archiving cases-data as well - then perhaps their "glitch" claim is not sinister, but that would no doubt leave a hugh impact on their reliability.

Either which one, they have undermined their integrity given their proclamation that their archiving records had been used in judicial cases in the past, how do they now hope to taken seriously for future reference by judicial systems if their housekeeping
( so to speak) isn't in order.

by **PeterMac** 21.06.15 7:41

whodunnit wrote:

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.

In that respect it is similar to the Last Photo.
If it was taken at 2:29 3/5/7 then it is just a photo
If it was taken on 29/4/7 then the date has been altered, and several consequences arise.

(The fact is: it cannot possibly have been taken on 3/5/7 )

by Guest 21.06.15 7:49

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.

Absolutely.

"Expert" syn signed up here just to teach us nonsense and tell us this is nothing to worry about.

But hey.. lots of people vouch for him/her.

The wall of text post was especially nice.

by Guest 21.06.15 7:53

Syn

I will not stand by and stay silent when misinformation is being perpetuated such as in the case here regarding the 30/04 issue.

By you and Nuala?

by Guest 21.06.15 7:57

whatsupdoc wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:I can vouch for Syn.. .she may not be saying what we want to hear but she is an expert in the technological field.

I'll second that. I know of syn0nymph from Twitter.

I don't think we should be knocking newcomers either.

History shows we should be highly suspicious of new comers.

Especially hot single issue ones come to "correct" us.

by Guest 21.06.15 7:57

cloak'ndagger wrote:I can vouch for Syn.. .she may not be saying what we want to hear but she is an expert in the technological field.

She knows jack about java and web pages.

by aiyoyo 21.06.15 8:03

Every time any new member joins to participate in the discussion on their specialised field, they are regarded with suspicions? Why?

Why is there a need to denigrate new members?

How do we hope to attract and more importantly retain talented members if we adopt that kind of attitude all the time?

by Guest 21.06.15 8:13

aiyoyo wrote:Every time any new member joins to participate in the discussion on their specialised field, they are regarded with suspicions? Why?

Why is there a need to denigrate new members?

How do we hope to attract and more importantly retain talented members if we adopt that kind of attitude all the time?

1) Because there are people already here who are also specialised in the same field and smell the BS, epecially when people sign up just to tell us we are wrong.

2) History of this forum shows we should be wary, after 8 years a real "new member" is rare.

3) We don't adopt this attitude all the time.

The other thing to watch out for is starting David Icke Forum type "crazy" theories - diminish the good stuff by surrounding it with the nutty... "hey look... they're all nuts".
The David Icke forum is a great example of the interesting thing being deliberately smothered by the wacky. Now it's all wacky as the good posters went away.

Protecting forum integrity is important.

by aiyoyo 21.06.15 8:24

BlueBag wrote:
Protecting forum integrity is important.

What? How?

By descending to denigrating new members willy nilly?

Sorry I don't agree with you that it's a given that new comers are disruptive.
Some actually do contribute rather well.

Just a general observation applying to general posters.

by Syn 21.06.15 8:27

Tony Bennett wrote:
whatsupdoc wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:I can vouch for Syn.. .she may not be saying what we want to hear but she is an expert in the technological field.

I'll second that. I know of syn0nymph from Twitter.
'Syn0nymph' is Denise Thomson on Twitter - and all I know about her so far is that she has written (mostly on Twitter AFAIK) about the CATS file 19309 on Gerry McCann, and has made references to Jim Gamble in that connection. She has made certain claims about this. I am not sure how many have been substantiated, however.

I believe she may also be 'Pseudo Nym' on the 'Laid Bare' blog, who was the author of '20 FACTS ABOUT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE McCANN', recently featured on our forum. As she also writes on the 'Laid Bare' blog as 'Syn0nymph', and as the writing styles are very similar, I think it is a reasonable assumption that 'Syn', 'Syn0nymph' and 'Pseudo Nym' are all one and the same individual.

The '20 FACTS' leaflet had some good material in it, but on first scanning it I noted that 'Fact No. 6' about 'Smithman' was very inaccurate and, because of that, perpetuated the unsupported myth (IMO) that 'Smithman' really did see someone and that that someone was Gerry McCann.

I wrote a critique of 'Fact No. 6', here:

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

The author did not seem to be aware that Martin Smith soon resiled from his curious semi-identification of the man he said he saw as Gerry McCann - because the facts are that he has been co-operating fully with the McCann Team (and now Operation Grange) ever since December 2007. Indeed he has made public statements sympathising with the McCanns and urging the public to 'find the abductor'.

@ Syn If you are the author of the '20 FACTS' post, or have influence on whoever wrote it, please remove 'Fact No. 6', or at least re-write it so as not to give the impression that 'Smithman' is Gerry McCann. There is no simply no evidence whatsoever that Martin Smith did see Gerry McCann - and his claim to have seen anyone at all is doubtful

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I am not Pseudo Nym on the Laidbare blog - I do know who runs it and have given permission for the author to use stuff that I have written via twitlonger on there like here http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/unreliable-dogs.html. So please address your issues re Smithman to the blog owner and not to me.

I have written on twitter about CATS 19309, have a look at my greptweet and you will see what I have written. It won't be what you expect it to be a that is yet another conspiracy theory.

I have already said I am Syn0nymph on Twitter and I am Syn on MCF - I am not Pseudo Nym. Your powers of deduction are way off.

I will address your post again further later this evening as I am out for the day now.

by Syn 21.06.15 8:28

Thanks to those who have vouched for me :) Have a lovely day all :)

by Guest 21.06.15 8:30

aiyoyo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Protecting forum integrity is important.

What? How?

By descending to denigrating new members willy nilly?

Sorry I don't agree with you that it's a given that new comers are disruptive.
Some actually do contribute rather well.

Just a general observation applying to general posters.

We don't denigrate all new posters.

Just the disruptive ones and the ones on a mission to put us right about a hot issue.

Yes some new comers do contribute rather well.

by Guest 21.06.15 8:32

Syn wrote:Thanks to those who have vouched for me :) Have a lovely day all :)

Own up to the fact you were talking out your backside yesterday and all will be forgiven.

by aiyoyo 21.06.15 8:41

BlueBag wrote:Just the disruptive ones and the ones on a mission to put us right about a hot issue.

Isn't that subjective? And down to perception?

How do we differentiate the disruptive from non-disruptive ones?

Isn't it best to ignore them and they will be left talking to themselves? Why drive them away? So long as no one engages with them, it's rather amusing to watch the disruptive ones trip up.

by whatsupdoc 21.06.15 8:57

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I've been checking the mccann.html files on WBM and if you try 30th April and the 1st May links including an * after the date/time stamp you get the calendar and can see the 30th and the 1st snapshot dates, Clicking on either will bring up a pic of Madeleine but the date on the top has been changed to 13th May.

The link for YouTube around midday on the 30th April is still there and showing 30th April when the snapshot is clicked on. All working, no problems.

So other sites such as YouTube are working on 30th April around 1200 on WBM ...just the mccann.html file causing a problem....AFAIK

I don't think a glitch covers an event such as making a file entry days before it has supposedly occured.

by Guest 21.06.15 8:57

aiyoyo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Just the disruptive ones and the ones on a mission to put us right about a hot issue.

Isn't that subjective? And down to perception?

How do we differentiate the disruptive from non-disruptive ones?

Isn't it best to ignore them and they will be left talking to themselves? Why drive them away? So long as no one engages with them, it's rather amusing to watch the disruptive ones trip up.

No.

Challenge them.

How do they trip up unless challenged?

Yesterday syn wanted to bamboozle us with java code in an attempt to diminish the mccann.html issue.

Sadly for her there are some java experts here.

Back to the topic.

We still have an anomaly that demands a real credible explanation.

"Glitch" isn't going to cut it.

(I sound like one of my customers).

by Guest 21.06.15 9:01

whatsupdoc wrote:Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I've been checking the mccann.html files on WBM and if you try 30th April and the 1st May links including an * after the date/time stamp you get the calendar and can see the 30th and the 1st snapshot dates, Clicking on either will bring up a pic of Madeleine but the date on the top has been changed to 13th May.

The link for YouTube around midday on the 30th April is still there and showing 30th April when the snapshot is clicked on. All working, no problems.

So other sites such as YouTube are working on 30th April around 1200 on WBM ...just the mccann.html file causing a problem....AFAIK

I don't think a glitch covers an event such as making a file entry days before it has supposedly occurred.

They just deleted the archive file in the 20070430 folder and their software finds the nearest one after that date.

It was originally showing a file IN the 20070430.

When they eventually run their index rebuild (which they said they will do very soon) the summary page will lose the 30th April 2007 blue circle.

Very 1984.

What about all the other pages that day?

If the supposed "glitch" just affected this page then that's a big red flag for me.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.06.15 9:01

Just Askin wrote:Is it just a coincidence that also on the 30th of April 2007 it is alleged that Barroso was shown a photograph of Madeleine McCann.

Alleged by whom? When was it alleged? Under what circumstances? Let's have a reference please, otherwise this alleged information is worthless.

Thanks

by Doug D 21.06.15 9:03

Some interesting snips from ‘Resistor’ on MMM, with ‘WLBTS’ still fighting against his comments :

‘I have been out for most of the day but I just ran a little test, that might be of some interest. Somebody has told me that people are questioning whether Wayback can pick up orphan pages, i.e. pages loose on servers that don't have hyperlinks to them. That is a very good question. I just checked with one of my own sites and yes, it does. I don't know how it does it exactly, without seeing the code - I suspect it polls the server log, probably an XML file - and just lists everything in there. There is a page on one of my own sites, hosted by 1&1 actually, that has never, ever been live or linked to, as it was only created for testing purposes, inside a folder and not intended for public consumption. But it's there.’

‘I am not entirely sure what this proves, but I am sure it must prove something. Even if it's only that somebody at WBM has been very, very busy on behalf of CEOP over the past couple of days.'

‘It proves, as much as anything else, that the records have been manipulated.

As the indexing is an automatic process, when the next big re-index happens, all of that will have gone and the April 30 blue dots will disappear. Anyone looking at it in, say, 6 months time wouldn't be any the wiser that anything untoward had even happened.

But why this hasty cover-up, that is what I want to know. At the very least it looks highly suspicious. If that had been my code, I would have changed it but also issued an apology for the error, and an explanation. The fact they haven't even done that, but just hoped that nobody would notice, leads me to believe that somebody, somewhere, has something to hide.

If the code for the entire point of their existence - saving things at a specific time - is wrong, where is the major bug fix for it? Has that been released yet? Are they even working on it? Does anybody know?’

………………………………………………………..

Most interesting to me seems to be the highlighted comment that WBM can & does pick up ‘orphan’ pages without hyperlinks wheras we have been told on here by some experts that this cannot possibly happen.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.06.15 9:13

Doug D wrote:Most interesting to me seems to be the highlighted comment that WBM can & does pick up ‘orphan’ pages without hyperlinks wheras we have been told on here by some experts that this cannot possibly happen.

This is absolutely crucial to this debate.

@ Nuala joined here specifically to answer my question on this very point - and was absolutely adamant that this [picking up 'orphan' pages] was a physical impossibility.

by Guest 21.06.15 9:26

[quote="aiyoyo"]Every time any new member joins to participate in the discussion on their specialised field, they are regarded with suspicions? Why?

Why is there a need to denigrate new members?

How do we hope to attract and more importantly retain talented members if we adopt that kind of attitude all the time?[/quote]

==============================

goodpost

by Guest 21.06.15 9:28

[quote="BlueBag"][quote="aiyoyo"]Every time any new member joins to participate in the discussion on their specialised field, they are regarded with suspicions? Why?

Why is there a need to denigrate new members?

How do we hope to attract and more importantly retain talented members if we adopt that kind of attitude all the time?[/quote]
1) Because there are people already here who are also specialised in the same field and smell the BS, epecially when people sign up [u]just[/u] to tell us we are wrong.

2) History of this forum shows we should be wary, after 8 years a real "new member" is rare.

3) We don't adopt this attitude all the time.

The other thing to watch out for is starting David Icke Forum type "crazy" theories - diminish the good stuff by surrounding it with the nutty... "hey look... they're all nuts".
The David Icke forum is a great example of the interesting thing being deliberately smothered by the wacky. Now it's all wacky as the good posters went away.

Protecting forum integrity is important.[/quote]

thumbsup