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

by Joss 21.06.15 17:26

rustyjames wrote:
Joss wrote:
rustyjames wrote:Just been playing around with the Wayback/Internet Archive's API's.

Haven't got anywhere to store the output online, but this link selects all index entries for the CEOP site on April 30th 2007 - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There are entries in there for news articles in the future.
So what does that mean?

It means it's very strange that the following entries for example would be indexed on the 30th April

Code:
uk,gov,ceop)/(s(0p4dtw454tlgkwy543bmxwfy))/news_items/article_20070514_ceop.htm 20070430115803 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/(S(0p4dtw454tlgkwy543bmxwfy))/news_items/article_20070514_ceop.htm text/html 200 AETMTGNS3RN7LVV425NBZCGQNZS2UNVH 4568 uk,gov,ceop)/(s(0p4dtw454tlgkwy543bmxwfy))/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm 20070430115803 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/(S(0p4dtw454tlgkwy543bmxwfy))/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm text/html 200 3RYSYZYZJLC7INV6I6YOTQOE7CYSGL6G 3637 uk,gov,ceop)/(s(0p4dtw454tlgkwy543bmxwfy))/news_items/article_20070611_ceop.htm 20070430115803 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/(S(0p4dtw454tlgkwy543bmxwfy))/news_items/article_20070611_ceop.htm text/html 200 4IWXDFCOSAXWAJZVJI5EY7LD45AWDPJD 5797 uk,gov,ceop)/(s(0p4dtw454tlgkwy543bmxwfy))/news_items/article_20070613_ceop.htm 20070430115803 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/(S(0p4dtw454tlgkwy543bmxwfy))/news_items/article_20070613_ceop.htm text/html 200 FDPG6RPJ75WIRMOULKKBZ7CMTZO2VWO7 2605 uk,gov,ceop)/(s(0p4dtw454tlgkwy543bmxwfy))/news_items/article_20070625_ceop.htm 20070430115803 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/(S(0p4dtw454tlgkwy543bmxwfy))/news_items/article_20070625_ceop.htm text/html 200 JTVX33O6UVI4QMOLOXI6D7KMFLF3VLYZ 5159 uk,gov,ceop)/(s(0p4dtw454tlgkwy543bmxwfy))/news_items/article_20070719_ceop.htm 20070430115803 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/(S(0p4dtw454tlgkwy543bmxwfy))/news_items/article_20070719_ceop.htm text/html 200 H64KMBMA26EZOU7W4BCGQVQMHOJKHVBE 4165

Picking the 7th June article and searching for all references to it ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) shows:

Code:
uk,gov,ceop)/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm 20070430115803 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm text/html 200 3RYSYZYZJLC7INV6I6YOTQOE7CYSGL6G 3609 uk,gov,ceop)/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm 20070708220101 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm text/html 200 W4SJBDOIS5X4EBLZ3KRWFDOW7MCLA23B 3511 uk,gov,ceop)/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm 20071230181833 http://www.ceop.gov.uk:80/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm text/html 200 3RYSYZYZJLC7INV6I6YOTQOE7CYSGL6G 3559 uk,gov,ceop)/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm 20080229143339 http://www.ceop.gov.uk:80/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm text/html 404 6IFP5M3IZ6HTG6U6BTIMGIDIUFS7R6NR 1919 uk,gov,ceop)/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm 20080501100235 http://www.ceop.gov.uk:80/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm text/html 404 6IFP5M3IZ6HTG6U6BTIMGIDIUFS7R6NR 1917

i.e. other than the 30th, all other references appear in indexing after the article was published, (the last couple have a status of 404 which means the page wasn't found). Other articles seem to be the same, for example after an April 30th entry, the 19th July article is then only next indexed on the 27th August.

Thankyou for your reply rustyjames, and it is all rather odd. Maybe Steve will have some answers about it soon?

by HKP 21.06.15 17:37

@rustyjames:- that's a mass of data, what parts can you call out for us to view (given you state there are items in there for the future). Where does that lead us if there are?

by HKP 21.06.15 17:39

Sorry rustyjames see you've highlighted it while I was reading

by HKP 21.06.15 17:44

@rustyjames, whilst the search clearly was for 30/04 the results clearly show other dates in the filenames so what does this really tell us?

by **Tony Bennett** 21.06.15 18:16

rustyjames wrote:
Picking the 7th June article and searching for all references to it ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) shows:
Code:
uk,gov,ceop)/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm 20070430115803 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm text/html 200 3RYSYZYZJLC7INV6I6YOTQOE7CYSGL6G 3609 uk,gov,ceop)/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm 20070708220101 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm text/html 200 W4SJBDOIS5X4EBLZ3KRWFDOW7MCLA23B 3511 uk,gov,ceop)/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm 20071230181833 http://www.ceop.gov.uk:80/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm text/html 200 3RYSYZYZJLC7INV6I6YOTQOE7CYSGL6G 3559 uk,gov,ceop)/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm 20080229143339 http://www.ceop.gov.uk:80/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm text/html 404 6IFP5M3IZ6HTG6U6BTIMGIDIUFS7R6NR 1919 uk,gov,ceop)/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm 20080501100235 http://www.ceop.gov.uk:80/news_items/article_20070607_ceop.htm text/html 404 6IFP5M3IZ6HTG6U6BTIMGIDIUFS7R6NR 1917

i.e. other than the 30th, all other references appear in indexing after the article was published, (the last couple have a status of 404 which means the page wasn't found). Other articles seem to be the same, for example after an April 30th entry, the 19th July article is then only next indexed on the 27th August.

@ rustyjames

Could you plrease tell me if the following statement is, or is not, a fair representation of what those (like Christopher Butler of Wayback, Nuala, Syn), who claim that this is all an error or glitch are saying, thanks:

STATEMENT

Look at the above entries. All except the top one (30 April) are of a news event (7 June 07) indexed after the news event.

A news event cannot possibly be indexed before the news event itself.

Therefore it is obvious that there must have been an error or glitch in the system

by lj 21.06.15 18:36

Just to bring some lightness in this discussion that's way over my head:

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

1. From my mother: IT'S NOT TURNING ON NOW BECAUSE YOU DOWNLOADED WHATEVER THAT FIREFOX THING IS.

2. Reaching over my shoulder and pressing the power button, while I was mid way through a registry edit and saying... "do you think rebooting it will help."

3. "Ever since you fixed that paper jam my computer has been running slower."

4.
Dad: I need to put some files on my thumb drive.
Me: Ok, remember how we did that last time?
Dad: No.
Me: Ok, what files?
Dad: Pictures.
Me: OK, open your pictures folder, highlight the ones you want and press Ctrl+C.
...
Me: Are you doing that?
Dad: No. I'm in control panel.
Me: Who told you to go to control panel?
Dad: I thought it might help.

5. My boss calls everything from our website to our printers "database". We do in fact have a document database which we use so every time there she has an issue I have no idea what she is talking about. "I can't connect to the database" = Can't Print. "The database crashed, were we hacked" = Computer unplugged.

6. People at my company that refer to everything as "The Server."
"Is the server down?" = My screen resolution set to 800x600
"Is the server up?" = I have somehow erased my hard drive
"Could you put it on the server?" = Why isn't the file magically appearing on my desktop .

7. "I was working on this word document for 2 hours and I closed it, it asked me to save and I said no. Get it back"

8. Blaming an error on you, when it happens months later, and is completely unrelated to any work you did. Especially if its a hardware failure when you fixed software problems. Just imagine that with any other technical industry. Have a friend who is an electrician come to your house for free, install an outlet, for free, and next year a lightbulb in the other side of your house burns out, so you call him up and say it is probably his fault, and guilt him into replacing it.

9. As a kid, my mom would play this online card game. I would play little cartoon games, like whinnie the pooh, and junk like that. Anyway, one day I come home and all my games are deleted, I was mortified. I asked my mom what happened and she told me, "they were making the computer run slower." about 2 or 3 years later I realized that she would download and reinstall her stupid card game every single time she wanted to play it.

10. "Where's all my stuff?" After reloading her OS and having:
1. Explained at length how EVERYTHING WOULD BE GONE.
2. Offered her a data transfer.
3. Read her the wipe/reload paperwork OUT LOUD.
4. Had her sign the papers that said, "EVERYTHING WILL BE GONE."
5. Told her that her computer would only have the things on it that it had when it was brand new.

11.The other day, I was informed that I needed to make sure that the server was up, and it was to be a priority because the customer did not have an operating system.

12.Doing tech support at an ISP, person said "My computer won't turn on, your internet is broken" I asked them to check the back of the computer to see if the plug was in, they replied "I can't see the back of the computer, its dark in here" I said "Well turn on the light then." Reply "Well... the power is out."

13.
Mom: Some of my keys on the keyboard are sticking. Can you ask your boyfriend to reprogram it for me?
Me: No, Mom, that's not how that works. That sounds like a hardware problem.
Mom: You're not the computer engineer!

14. My mother. Her computer crashed one day (presumably due to all the stress). She completely wiped the hard drive then decided to buy a new computer because she likes new things.
Next day:
Mom: "I can't find any of my files on my new computer."
Me: "Well, you didn't do a data transfer."
Mom: "But I put the old one in the new computer! It's sitting right there on the bottom!"
At this point, she opens the case and shows me the old drive just chillin' on the bottom panel. After I explain how that doesn't do anything, this happens:
Mom: "Well, I've got some copper wire in the office somewhere. You can attach the new one to the old one."
Me: "That...won't work."
Mom: "YES IT WILL YOU'RE JUST LAZY."

15. Where are your files?
In Word
Okay but where are they?
In WORD!
But in what folder are they in, My Documents?
NO THEY'RE IN WORD DAMMIT.

16. That if you get the destination address slightly wrong on an email, someone, like an electronic postman i guess, will know what you mean. My mum had been giving out her email, adding "or something like that"

17. Me: "Show me exactly how you caused the problem to occur."
Them: "Why can't you do it? You're the computer expert."

18. My dad called me a Twat because I opened a new tab.

19."I know you folks at Best Buy are always trying to confuse people like me. I don't want to hear any bullcrap, just show me where the discs of internet are."
"Discs... Ma'am I don't quite understand, do you already have a provider? or..."
"CUT THE BULLSH*T, just show me where I can get a disc of internet!"
"In the aisle next to car stereos ma'am."

20. "So here's how you can prevent this from happening in the future."
"Don't give me technical mumbo jumbo, just fix it."

That made me feel good, at least I'm smarter than most of these 20!

by lj 21.06.15 18:40

MRNOODLES wrote:So as a non techie I have to either trust either.

1. The original search was really correct

or

2. The Java Fairy had a brain fart and only messed up over the McCanns again. (As Harry Hill says, 'What's the chances of that happening?)

Which leads to

1 the McCanns are fooked

2 WBM is fooked

Not much other possibilities.

by Joss 21.06.15 18:59

I think instead of naming it the Wayback Machine they need to rename it the Wayforward Machine, i think the darn thing is psychic, there's your answer, confused

by Guest 21.06.15 19:00

@lj 6.36 pm

Your post is very funny, LOL moments. I recognised myself in some of the list.

by Doug D 21.06.15 19:05

No idea if this is of any relevance as far as the 30^th April 2007 investigation, but browsing CEOP captures this morning, there is one listed as:

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

which should be a capture on 17/6/15 of the site of the original appeal page where they asked people to download their holiday photos.

Clicking on the link then brings up an error message with a redirect to the following:

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

Same date, but diverted to just a CEOP information page, (same as the ones in rustyjames post above)

If I go to:

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

it brings up the original appeal page.

This is also captured on 23/5, 7/6, 12/6, 16/6, 27/6 etc and you seem to be able to tab the blue arrow forward to the next capture date quite happily, through to 1/4/09.

If you try and go directly to the web page it comes up server not found.

Would the WBM still be trying to look for a ‘dead’ page 6 years on?

Any 'glitch' in the system, to me, seems too coincidental to just involve the Mc’s and such a significant date & if CEOP seem to be clearing everything out and diverting it to this general information page, well just adds to it.

Wasn’t going to post this as it didn’t seem particularly significant this morning, but with all of rustyjames file diversions it just seems odd.

Far too many coincidences to my mind.

by Lance De Boils 21.06.15 19:48

Joss wrote:I think instead of naming it the Wayback Machine they need to rename it the Wayforward Machine, i think the darn thing is psychic, there's your answer,

by Lance De Boils 21.06.15 19:51

I got left behind about 40 pages ago.

Could somebody summarise, in a sentence or two, what the heck the situation is with this now?

by Liz Eagles 21.06.15 19:55

Lance De Boils wrote:
Joss wrote:I think instead of naming it the Wayback Machine they need to rename it the Wayforward Machine, i think the darn thing is psychic, there's your answer,

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

by lj 21.06.15 19:58

aquila wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:
Joss wrote:I think instead of naming it the Wayback Machine they need to rename it the Wayforward Machine, i think the darn thing is psychic, there's your answer,

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

by **Tony Bennett** 21.06.15 20:23

Lance De Boils wrote:I got left behind about 40 pages ago.

Could somebody summarise, in a sentence or two, what the heck the situation is with this now?

1. The Wayback Machine/archive.org, interrogated recently (16 or 17 June), produced a 'capture' of a page on the CEOP website with a URL endng in madeleine.html

2. The page allegedly had an old photo of Madeleine on it, and a brief mesage in 4 languages

3. 'Stevo' (Steve Marsden), via Isabell McFadden, asked Christopher Butler, Office Manager, if that was a wholly accurate capture, and he said: 'Yes, of course'

4. HideHo 'phoned him and said: 'Do you realise that this is a case of interntiomal importance and that Madeleine olnly went missing on 3 May and so your claimed 'capture' must be in error

5. Butler said: "Goodness, so it must be", and told HideHo and McFadden "We made a mistake"

6. Wayback are fixing their mistake

7. The tecchies are divided into two opposing camps. One camp says, "The date of capture is correct, and what they captured is correct". The other camp says, "It's an obvious mistake, because later news items are found on the 30 April page, and that's just not possible

8. Lots of very interesting technical arguments have been put forward by both sides but we don't have an agreed solution yet.

9, My summary may be wrong, and I invite correction if I am wrong

by Richard IV 21.06.15 20:25

Tony Bennett wrote:
Joss wrote:What was so significant on April 30th, I wonder? - for that date to even show up?
You could try asking Robert Murat. This was the day someone 'phoned him up and said 'Come over to Praia da Luz - quick!'

And he did just that, leaving home at about 5.00am the following morning to catch the 7.00am flight from Exeter to Faro.

And then he lied comprehensively to the police about what he did when he got over there

Also the day that Maddie was supposedly taken out of creche by her mother after only 10 mins in the afternoon session.

by Guest 21.06.15 21:04

Does anyone dispute the fact that a CEOP home page containing a date reference (2nd October News release) ended up in a 30th April 11:58:03 Folder on WBM?

Does anyone dispute the fact that that this home page was created on or after 2nd October?

Does anyone dispute the fact that the home page must have been put in the said 30th April 11:58:03 folder on or after 2nd October 2007?

Does anyone think that all the other CEOP pages equally dated as archived on 30th April 2007 at 11:58:03 were not done as part of the same process that did the October home page?

I know where my money lies.

I believe the WBM had a problem on or after 2nd October with some web pages... we are all focused on CEOP because we know the url and important dates. I strongly suspect there were many other pages with a problem but nobody cares because an international missing child case isn't hanging on it.

by HKP 21.06.15 21:12

Y@BB. Yes, why is it not just as likely that there was a McCann page on 30/04 and the October pages were put in the wrong folder. Without an explanation from WBM we are guessing. Whilst coincidences do occur this is a he'll of a big one!

by sallypelt 21.06.15 21:17

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Mimi Today at 9:13 pm

At about 2:00 mins the founder of Waybackmachine says they respond to people wanting to take stuff off.

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

Mimi posted this on the other forum a few minutes ago. I hope she doesn't mind me posting it here. Apologies to Mimi for hijacking her post hijacked

by Guest 21.06.15 21:17

HKP wrote:Y@BB. Yes, why is it not just as likely that there was a McCann page on 30/04 and the October pages were put in the wrong folder. Without an explanation from WBM we are guessing. Whilst coincidences do occur this is a he'll of a big one!

Because of the same time stamp.

This isn't just a 30th of April 2007 folder.

This is a 30th April 2007 at 11:58:03 folder - it's very precise.

The time is in the url of the folder.

Whatever put the October one in there likely put the others as well.

Like I said... people here see a coincidence.. but you have no idea of the scale of the WBM problem because they haven't said and 99% of the time probably no one really cares.

by **Richard D. Hall** 21.06.15 21:25

But not only was mccann.html in the 30 April folder. It had 30 April timestamp, suggesting that file was modified on 30 April. I have got the full PDF of the mccann.html file and there are no references in it to later dates OTHER than the stuff WMB writes to the file. I have not seen any other files from that folder. WBM only sent Isabelle Mcfadden ONE file from that folder.

Where is the source code from these other files.

Surely WHENEVER the function which constructs the timestamp is invoked it will always use the current date - ALWAYS. Therefore mccann.html surely must have existed on or before that date? The system will NEVER create a timestamp in a file for a previous date.

by HKP 21.06.15 21:32

@BB yes it is very precise with the date and time all in the URL, that's why I believe there is a good chance it is correct. There are other pages I.e. The New York Times which were successfully captured 30/04. Because the files are so specific it seems the folder rather than the file which is incorrect (as it has later dated files)

by HKP 21.06.15 21:34

@RD Hall, Richard have you seen the rustyjames information earlier in the thread?

by **Richard D. Hall** 21.06.15 21:37

It's the simple fact that we have a file mccann.html with a 30 April date stamp, which suggests to me the file existed on or before 30 April. It is similar to the date and time stamp on an email. When you read an email and look at the date on it - do you think ah that can't be right there must be a glitch? The server adds the date and time stamp to the email, and the date is reliable. An email cannot suddenly acquire an earlier date can it? just as a file with a date stamp encoded in it cannot suddenly acquire an earlier date.

by Guest 21.06.15 21:41

Richard D. Hall wrote:But not only was mccann.html in the 30 April folder. It had 30 April timestamp inside the file, suggesting that file was modified on 30 April. How can it be modified on 30 April if it did not exist. I have got the full PDF of the mccann.html file and there are no references in it to later dates OTHER than the stuff WMB writes to the file. I have not seen any other files from that folder. WBM only sent Isabelle Mcfadden ONE file from that folder. Therefore we have only seen the source code from ONE file as far as I am aware.

Where is the source code from these other files in the 30 April folder and where is the proof they were in that folder? - can you post it.

Surely WHENEVER the function which constructs the timestamp is invoked it will always use the current date - ALWAYS. Therefore mccann.html surely must have existed on or before that date? The system will NEVER create a timestamp in a file for a previous date.

Richard.. I believe the timestamp inside the file is added when you retrieve the page because it also has the timestamp of the retrieval.

It's in the same comment block at the end.

I think the timestamp added inside the file displayed is derived from the folder it is in.

You can't dispute the fact that the October webpage went in on or after 2nd October - so SOMETHING is absolutely wrong with the WBM.

by HKP 21.06.15 21:43

@RD Hall, Richard if you were to set your administration clock / date incorrectly then the system would record this?

by Guest 21.06.15 21:44

All this is added to the source when you retrieve the page because it contains dynamic information.

by **Richard D. Hall** 21.06.15 21:45

You said

I think the timestamp added inside the file displayed is derived from the folder it is in.

How do you know this?

by Guest 21.06.15 21:46

because the information text block is obviously dynamic.

FILE ARCHIVED ON 2:09:01 May 13, 2007 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 20:42:50 Jun 21, 2015.
JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.
ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
SECTION 108(a)(3)).