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

by Guest 17.06.15 21:01

sallypelt wrote:Is this the Christopher Butler that Isobelle is referring to? If so, he appears to be an office manager and not a technician:

Chris Butler Office Manager

An unrepentant dilettante, Chris has successfully parlayed his twin degrees in Environmental Science and Film Studies into a near decade of slumming around various non-profits in the SF Bay and Detroit Metro Areas. During that time, he has fought with and cleaned up after little kids, made sure the supply cabinet wasn't out of paperclips, and helped manage high-level legal issues and inquiries from federal and international law enforcement. As a fan of things that are preposterously good, Chris' involvement with the Archive has been a natural fit. The interests of the moment are tai chi, other "internal" martial arts, and pushing the socially-acceptable limits of film snobbery.

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

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

and helped manage high-level legal issues and inquiries from federal and international law enforcement.

by Doug D 17.06.15 21:16

Strange the different terminology used in the two responses, almost not relating to the same enquiry.

Anyway Isabelle has gone back for more:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Wayback is researching further at my request..lets see. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by whatsupdoc 17.06.15 21:16

I find the url unusual in that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has mccann on it's index/front page and not in the Latest News section.

At the time Madeleine went missing , she would have been just another missing person and not a person to splash on a front page.

The usual url is [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Maybe someone at ceop wanted to let the cat out of the bag and quickly put together the madeleine page. The material must have had to be ready to make up the page.

The Liz update/correction looks interesting. Nothing is straightforward with McCanns.

by **Richard D. Hall** 17.06.15 21:19

The archive system will make fresh copies of the page at certain intervals. What is needed is a record of the very first time their server discovered the page mccann.html. What was the date and time of the first instance of this? There will be multiple records made for this page AFTER this time. What is the date of the FIRST archive. The email is not clear on this point.

Why doesn't Liz show us the query ? What did she ask him to provide ?

by Guest 17.06.15 21:23

Thank you ADMIN!

thanks

by Joannep43 17.06.15 21:25

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Chris butler,more Info on how Wayback works and links for access to do searches.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.06.15 21:25

Richard D. Hall wrote: Why doesn't Liz show us the query? What did she ask him to provide?

Exactly right.

It would be very helpful indeed if both HideHo/Liz and Isabelle McFadden could now post for us all:

a) the contents of their respective e-mails, and
b) what attachments or other information they actually sent him.

by Guest 17.06.15 21:28

Dear mr. Bennett, would you do me, and maybe some others, a huge favor and un-Hall, or de-Hall yourself?

I'm sure you're much more interesting as a man

by Liz Eagles 17.06.15 21:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
Richard D. Hall wrote: Why doesn't Liz show us the query? What did she ask him to provide?
Exactly right.

It would be very helpful indeed if both HideHo/Liz and Isabelle McFadden could now post for us all:

a) the contents of their respective e-mails, and
b) what attachments or other information they actually sent him.

I agree. A response of any sort depends on what was asked in the first place.

by Liz Eagles 17.06.15 21:50

Unashamedly nicked from MMM.

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

by **Jill Havern** 17.06.15 21:55

Tony Bennett wrote:
Richard D. Hall wrote: Why doesn't Liz show us the query? What did she ask him to provide?
Exactly right.

It would be very helpful indeed if both HideHo/Liz and Isabelle McFadden could now post for us all:

a) the contents of their respective e-mails, and
b) what attachments or other information they actually sent him.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] NOTE: I have spoken to the legal representative of Internet Archive and he will be emailing me with a message regarding their Wayback Machine and then will be passing the info to his team to check all the technical details.

I asked

*Why there was a pge existing for Madeleine on April 30th

*Why there was a link to download a poster from a website that did not exist until a few days later.

*Why the homepage for April 30th showed 'Latest News' for October 2007 (six months later) when all the preceeding pages had correct data

*Whether the source code/HTML could have been tampered with

And more...

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

by **Tony Bennett** 17.06.15 22:03

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Richard D. Hall wrote: Why doesn't Liz show us the query? What did she ask him to provide?
Exactly right.

It would be very helpful indeed if both HideHo/Liz and Isabelle McFadden could now post for us all:

a) the contents of their respective e-mails, and
b) what attachments or other information they actually sent him.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] NOTE: I have spoken to the legal representative of Internet Archive and he will be emailing me with a message regarding their Wayback Machine and then will be passing the info to his team to check all the technical details.

I asked

*Why there was a pge existing for Madeleine on April 30th

*Why there was a link to download a poster from a website that did not exist until a few days later.

*Why the homepage for April 30th showed 'Latest News' for October 2007 (six months later) when all the preceeding pages had correct data

*Whether the source code/HTML could have been tampered with

And more...

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

@ HideHo and @ Get 'em Goncalo

That's very helpful - and very quick - thank you both very much!

And a lot more helpful than Portia's idiotic comment

by NickE 17.06.15 22:04

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]@QUEENdePORTUGAL[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Just spoke 2Chris.There seems to be also different time stamps on posters.Will get us more info [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] latest email

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

by phil_burton 17.06.15 22:21

Let me start by saying that I'm a web development professional, and have been for 10+ years.

It's very unusual for such a simple data entry to be mistaken, such as the date entry on this record. There are issues with date formats in databases, for example, the American way of writing 4th of December 2012 is 12/4/2012, whereas in Europe we write this as 4/12/2012. This can result in weird or incorrect date values in databases.

So, although it appears that the record stored under April 30th is simple a record from sometime in December 2007, it is unlikely that such a simple mistake would occur for a brief period of time.

However, if you look at other records of the same site from similar dates in 2007, the dates of the news stories fit in with the date of the capture. It would therefore appear to be a mistake in the recording of these pages on or around April 30th 2007.

The stuff about javascript is a red herring - at the time, before dynamically-driven websites were commonplace, it was common for websites to load dynamic content via unusual means such as iframes, or javascript, however, looking at the source of the page in question, neither of these types of dynamic loading appear to be present.

On a final note - I, having posted a few times on this site, am not a believer of the theory that MM went missing much earlier than May 3rd. If, as this theory suggests, that there was an elaborate media plan in place to stage-manage a faked abduction on a world-wide scale, then I very much doubt that the CEOP website would have a) been on the list of planned outlets or b) been allowed to release information 4 days before it should have been.

by **Richard D. Hall** 17.06.15 22:22

Well well well. The tentacles of British Intelligence don't half extend a long way. Two completely contradictory emails. Allow me to believe Butler has been got at. The original email mentions an attachment which is the actual computer record. Can you please post a screenshot of the attachment of the computer record which showed 30 April as the archive date? Thanks

by j.rob 17.06.15 22:23

No doubt there will be strenuous efforts to "prove" that the date is false.

But - so what?

The evidence is out there. Practically no-one believes the McCanns and their 'team'.

And why would they?

by j.rob 17.06.15 22:26

phil_burton wrote:Let me start by saying that I'm a web development professional, and have been for 10+ years.

It's very unusual for such a simple data entry to be mistaken, such as the date entry on this record. There are issues with date formats in databases, for example, the American way of writing 4th of December 2012 is 12/4/2012, whereas in Europe we write this as 4/12/2012. This can result in weird or incorrect date values in databases.

So, although it appears that the record stored under April 30th is simple a record from sometime in December 2007, it is unlikely that such a simple mistake would occur for a brief period of time.

However, if you look at other records of the same site from similar dates in 2007, the dates of the news stories fit in with the date of the capture. It would therefore appear to be a mistake in the recording of these pages on or around April 30th 2007.

The stuff about javascript is a red herring - at the time, before dynamically-driven websites were commonplace, it was common for websites to load dynamic content via unusual means such as iframes, or javascript, however, looking at the source of the page in question, neither of these types of dynamic loading appear to be present.

On a final note - I, having posted a few times on this site, am not a believer of the theory that MM went missing much earlier than May 3rd. If, as this theory suggests, that there was an elaborate media plan in place to stage-manage a faked abduction on a world-wide scale, then I very much doubt that the CEOP website would have a) been on the list of planned outlets or b) been allowed to release information 4 days before it should have been.

Ah - an expert! Fantastic!

What do you believe happened to Madeleine McCann?

Do you believe what her parents say happened to her?

by j.rob 17.06.15 22:26

Richard D. Hall wrote:Well well well. The tentacles of British Intelligence don't half extend a long way. Two completely contradictory emails. Allow me to believe Butler has been got at.

Farter- Cucked?

by Liz Eagles 17.06.15 22:28

Richard D. Hall wrote:Well well well. The tentacles of British Intelligence don't half extend a long way. Two completely contradictory emails. Allow me to believe Butler has been got at. The original email mentions an attachment which is the actual computer record. Can you please post a screenshot of the attachment of the computer record which showed 30 April as the archive date? Thanks

Richard, you have contradicted yourself with regards to this issue on the forum today too unless my English comprehension is way out of kilter.

by **Richard D. Hall** 17.06.15 22:31

How have I contradicted myself? - We need to see the actual print out which showed the date of 30 April for archive. Then ask the question, why would it be incorrect. As we have seen earlier in this thread, a simple test on my website shows that the archiving date works. It does not give a date 3 days before I updated the site, the archive date given is the date I changed the site. By the way I too was a full time web developer from 2002 to 2008.

by j.rob 17.06.15 22:39

Richard D. Hall wrote:How have I contradicted myself? - We need to see the actual print out which showed the date of 30 April for archive. Then ask the question, why would it be incorrect. As we have seen earlier in this thread, a simple test on my website shows that the archiving date works. It does not give a date 3 days before I updated the site, the archive date given is the date I changed the site. By the way I too was a full time web developer from 2002 to 2008.

Ah - interesting!

by j.rob 17.06.15 22:40

Portia wrote:Dear mr. Bennett, would you do me, and maybe some others, a huge favor and un-Hall, or de-Hall yourself?

I'm sure you're much more interesting as a man

????????????

by Guest 17.06.15 22:42

j.rob wrote:
Portia wrote:Dear mr. Bennett, would you do me, and maybe some others, a huge favor and un-Hall, or de-Hall yourself?

I'm sure you're much more interesting as a man

????????????

With a male avatar, I meant.

:wink4:

by Liz Eagles 17.06.15 22:43

Richard D. Hall wrote:How have I contradicted myself? - We need to see the actual print out which showed the date of 30 April for archive. Then ask the question, why would it be incorrect. As we have seen earlier in this thread, a simple test on my website shows that the archiving date works. It does not give a date 3 days before I updated the site, the archive date given is the date I changed the site. By the way I too was a full time web developer from 2002 to 2008.

To quote you:

Richard D. Hall wrote:Well well well. The tentacles of British Intelligence don't half extend a long way. Two completely contradictory emails. Allow me to believe Butler has been got at. The original email mentions an attachment which is the actual computer record. Can you please post a screenshot of the attachment of the computer record which showed 30 April as the archive date? Thanks

..............................................................................

Is everything a conspiracy? This morning was a post from someone called Steve Marsden and Twitter is on fire with some sort of 'revelation'.

This afternoon you questioned the validity of this and later declared Mr Butler of Wayback as an expert (btw as an aside I do check my gas bills sent to me from customer services).

Now you are saying Mr Butler has been got at by British Intelligence.

by **Richard D. Hall** 17.06.15 22:48

No everything isn't a conspiracy, the Madeleine McCann case is a conspiracy. Consider what is resting on the result of that data? If proven it would be enough to arrest the McCann's, Jim Gamble, the Tapas 7 and possibly people in the British government and police. This conspiracy is being protected by British Intelligence of that I am sure. So it is not beyond the bounds of reason that new evidence like this would be quickly eradicated using whatever means they could. Computers do not make mistakes. They grab the time, and append it to a record and archive the data. How many times does your computer get the date wrong on an email. I agree everything isn't a conspiracy, but there has been no explanation given as to why the record originally recorded 30 April.

by Gaggzy 17.06.15 22:55

Portia wrote:Dear mr. Bennett, would you do me, and maybe some others, a huge favor and un-Hall, or de-Hall yourself?

I'm sure you're much more interesting as a man

Portia - I think you mean un-WALL, or de-WALL with reference to Tony's avatar pic of Nicola WALL?

I believe Tony got the wrong end of the stick and thinks you were insinuating that he is Richard D Hall.

I'm sure he'll see the amusing side of this though, seeing as he has been accused of being many other people on this site. friends

by Liz Eagles 17.06.15 22:56

Richard D. Hall wrote:No everything isn't a conspiracy, the Madeleine McCann case is a conspiracy. Consider what is resting on the result of that data? If proven it would be enough to arrest the McCann's, Jim Gamble, the Tapas 7 and possibly people in the British government and police. This conspiracy is being protected by British Intelligence of that I am sure. So it is not beyond the bounds of reason that new evidence like this would be quickly eradicated using whatever means they could. Computers do not make mistakes. They grab the time, and append it to a record and archive the data. How many times does your computer get the date wrong on an email. I agree everything isn't a conspiracy.

But it's not evidence is it Richard? It's a Tweet or FB post from someone and is yet to be proven.

Within hours of this information hitting the screens of Twitter, FB and forums this has become a hot topic with absolutely no substance and yet within a few hours of it arriving on our screens you have decided that someone called Mr Butler of Wayback is an expert and has been got at by British Intelligence.

I'm lost.

by Guest 17.06.15 22:57

I don't credit Gamble with much savvy but would he and/or his former 'team' really be so stupid as to make such a crass error?

I'm a total simpleton on matters of technology but could this be only some sort of default time used by the CEOP website? Some while ago I located the initial report of MBM's disappearance in the Telegraph, the article was timed at 12:01 am 4th May 2007 which could indicate that the Telegraph was alerted within two hours of Kate raising the alarm. I don't think for a moment that was the case, I believe there is a more rational explanation for the timing shown by the Telegraph.

This anomaly doesn't appear to apply to all UK press outlets but I have noticed this is not the only instant where the Telegraph shows the same time, I think for archived articles although I can't be sure. Unfortunately the original report seems to have disappeared from the archives so I can't post up to confirm.

ETA: Voila! Found it..

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

by **Richard D. Hall** 17.06.15 22:59

aquila wrote:
Richard D. Hall wrote:No everything isn't a conspiracy, the Madeleine McCann case is a conspiracy. Consider what is resting on the result of that data? If proven it would be enough to arrest the McCann's, Jim Gamble, the Tapas 7 and possibly people in the British government and police. This conspiracy is being protected by British Intelligence of that I am sure. So it is not beyond the bounds of reason that new evidence like this would be quickly eradicated using whatever means they could. Computers do not make mistakes. They grab the time, and append it to a record and archive the data. How many times does your computer get the date wrong on an email. I agree everything isn't a conspiracy.
But it's not evidence is it Richard? It's a Tweet or FB post from someone and is yet to be proven.

Within hours of this information hitting the screens of Twitter, FB and forums this has become a hot topic with absolutely no substance and yet within a few hours of it arriving on our screens you have decided that someone called Mr Butler of Wayback is an expert and has been got at by British Intelligence.

I'm lost.

Read Butlers first email, this is evidence.

by Liz Eagles 17.06.15 23:06

Richard D. Hall wrote:
aquila wrote:
Richard D. Hall wrote:No everything isn't a conspiracy, the Madeleine McCann case is a conspiracy. Consider what is resting on the result of that data? If proven it would be enough to arrest the McCann's, Jim Gamble, the Tapas 7 and possibly people in the British government and police. This conspiracy is being protected by British Intelligence of that I am sure. So it is not beyond the bounds of reason that new evidence like this would be quickly eradicated using whatever means they could. Computers do not make mistakes. They grab the time, and append it to a record and archive the data. How many times does your computer get the date wrong on an email. I agree everything isn't a conspiracy.
But it's not evidence is it Richard? It's a Tweet or FB post from someone and is yet to be proven.

Within hours of this information hitting the screens of Twitter, FB and forums this has become a hot topic with absolutely no substance and yet within a few hours of it arriving on our screens you have decided that someone called Mr Butler of Wayback is an expert and has been got at by British Intelligence.

I'm lost.
Read Butlers first email, this is evidence.

So on the basis of a 'first email' you are happy to say this is evidence?

I think we shall have to agree to disagree.