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

by jeanmonroe 25.06.15 13:22

For 'accuracy's' sake, it WAS Tricia Cameron, GM's sister, that said about "the shutters had been jammied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing."

NOT Philomena McCann.

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

Transcript

By Nigel Moore

Reporter: Well, the McCann family, Gerry and Kate, with their twins and three-year-old Madeleine went on holiday to Portugal last Saturday, from their home in Rothley, in Leicestershire. They'd gone to a popular resort on the coast of the Algarve with a group of other families; nine adults; eight children; all on holiday together. Now, last night Madeleine and the twins were left sleeping in their room, while her parents had a meal in a restaurant two hundred yards away - and they did regular checks on them - but at ten o'clock last night there was a huge shock for Kate. Madeleine's aunt who lives in Scotland, takes up the story.

Trish Cameron: They last checked at half past nine; they were all sound asleep, sleeping; windows shut; shutters shut. Kate went back at ten o'clock to check; the front door was lying open; the window had been tampered with; the shutters had been jammied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing.
-------------------------------------------------
"one" of my all time 'favourites'"

Trish Cameron: "They last checked at half past nine; they were all sound asleep, sleeping; windows shut; shutters shut."

SO, THAT'S TEN MINUTES AFTER JANE TANNER HAD 'SEEN' 'MADELEINE BEING 'CARRIED OFF' BY 'TANNERMAN', AT 9:20PM!

THE 'BURGLATOR' MUST HAVE 'COME BACK' TO APARTMENT G5A TO 'SMASH, AND RAISE, THE SHUTTER' (KM) AND 'OPEN THE WINDOW, WIDE'............... ELEVEN MINUTES AFTER 'OUR' JANE HAD 'SEEN' HIM 'ABDUCTING' MADELEINE!

Because,

'according' to GM's own SISTER, Trish,

AT 'half past nine' (9:30pm) the WINDOW 'was SHUT' and the 'shutter was SHUT'

And

'according' to GM's sister, Trish, 'they (Madeleine and twins) were ALL (Madeleine and twins) sound asleep, sleeping;...'

AT........... HALF PAST NINE!

Now, thinking

, if only we could get a 'figure' in 'authority', say, like a 30 year career, DCI, to 'shift/move/chivvy' the 'timeline' 'along', somehow, to 'nearer' say 10:00pm, 3rd May 2007. That would 'eliminate' any 'dodgy' handwritten 'timelines' and anyone mentioned in 'them', wouldn't it? winkwink

Oh, hang on.................

by HelenMeg 25.06.15 14:30

Solely in the aim of ensuring a balanced discussion I am bringing some words from the sensible Resistor to this forum - I hope they wont mind:

Resistor says this in response to a question by another poster regarding BB's assertion that it is a fact that Wayback machine made an error:

Really? I didn't even know it was a competition. And I really am astonished at the number of "experts" with "degrees in Computing Science" and God alone knows what else, suddenly crawling from the woodwork, who immediately think that we should just all believe them without question.

Well, I am not going to tell anyone what my experience and qualifications are, because as I already said, it's not a pissing contest. What I will say is that I am by no means an expert in every single IT field. I'm always learning something new, even from amateurs; and there is no way I would expect everyone to believe everything I post just because I have "degrees" and "I said so".

I've already posted a few pages back on this thread, an example of how Wayback recreates pages taken both from the current date and the future.* Anyone can go and look up anything I have written. I don't expect anyone to blindly accept my word on anything, but because I am confident in my own hypotheses and have laid out evidence and examples, people can make up their own minds.

I still believe that Wayback was and is 100% correct in it's crawl, it couldn't have captured something that was not there, and CEOP - Jim Gamble in particular - has a lot of explaining to do.

*ETA it's on page 41.

by Guest 25.06.15 14:40

HelenMeg wrote:Really?

Yes really.

100% fact the WBM is in error.

Indisputable.

Ask Steve Marsden because he highlighted the problem right at the start of his Facebook thread (did you bother to read it?).

And he was the one who started all this.

Guess what.. even the best software can go wrong as Apple and Microsoft will attest.

And no it's not a competition... I have 34 years experience of analyising/fixing computer glitches/bugs/"features".. I've caused a few myself.

You can ignore me if you like, I could care less. I do care about this forum though.

by HKP 25.06.15 14:44

@helenmeg. Another astute post from Resistor, thanks for bringing it across.

by **PeterMac** 25.06.15 14:45

I don;t know enough about this to get involved, but for posterity I have just copied this from Twitter
Saved from Whooshing !

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

by HKP 25.06.15 14:50

@bluebag. Did you read where Stevo also said he had been using Wayback for years and it was rock solid. He then went on about 9/11 being captured (not that it has any relevance). He obviously gas some doubts.

by HKP 25.06.15 14:56

@peterMac. the poster whodunnit has pointed this out on a good few occasions on this thread. It seams that some people can't accept that if there is an error (and we don't know for sure if there is) then it is the 'October' page that could possibly be wrong not McCann. htm

by Guest 25.06.15 15:11

HKP wrote:@bluebag. Did you read where Stevo also said he had been using Wayback for years and it was rock solid. He then went on about 9/11 being captured (not that it has any relevance). He obviously gas some doubts.

Did you read his thread where he found out it wasn't rock solid?

by Guest 25.06.15 15:18

HKP wrote:@peterMac. the poster whodunnit has pointed this out on a good few occasions on this thread. It seams that some people can't accept that if there is an error (and we don't know for sure if there is) then it is the 'October' page that could possibly be wrong not McCann. htm

We do know for sure that there is.

There is no argument.

And anything associated to the error with a same time stamp is going to be the same.

Or... the alternative is that sometime after 27th October the WBM decided to archive the October page in a folder with the same time stamp that already existed.

I'd love to to the program logic for that.... "where shall I put this...? Oh how about a random existing one at the end of April... not the first one I can find or the last... somewhere in the middle".

The simplest explanation in terms of program logic is that the other pages were trawled at the same time as the October page because WBM produced a wrong time stamp (which it did).

by Guest 25.06.15 15:20

PeterMac wrote:I don;t know enough about this to get involved, but for posterity I have just copied this from Twitter
Saved from Whooshing !

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

That's because the index hasn't be rebuilt yet.

by HKP 25.06.15 15:32

@Bluebag. You keep banging on about facts, the only fact is that a page which indicates it was an 'October' page was found in and index of April. You don't know how it got there, that is the other fact that you seem to ignore. All you're doing is speculating based on your not the most experienced IT person on this forum knowledge of other systems which are not Wayback

by HelenMeg 25.06.15 15:32

HKP wrote:@helenmeg. Another astute post from Resistor, thanks for bringing it across.

Yes well you will understand, I am sure, the need thumbup

I have seen this type of thing happen before on threads we we are told in no uncertain terms to believe a particular line.

by whodunnit 25.06.15 15:42

It seems we are being told in no uncertain terms that an error is a 'fact' and that there is 'no argument'.

I'd like to know if poster BlueBag is a mod and if he has the authority to shut down this thread. Because if not, his aggressive attitude + his post count will surely have the effect shutting it down if mods and admins do not clarify the issue soon. I am only a guest here and will by all means go elsewhere to have this conversation but as the largest and most active Madeleine forum I think it matters a great deal whether CMOMM will allow this debate to continue or not.

by whodunnit 25.06.15 15:46

And yes PeterMac, I've been trying seemingly to no avail to point out the sequential coding on the mccann.html page. It's a shame someone didn't save the code from the April/October CEOP homepage, or at least I haven't seen it, as I believe this would clear matters up to a large degree.

by Guest 25.06.15 15:51

HKP wrote:@Bluebag. You keep banging on about facts, the only fact is that a page which indicates it was an 'October' page was found in and index of April. You don't know how it got there, that is the other fact that you seem to ignore.

The FACT is it was there right from the start - check out Steve Marsdens Facebook thread - from the beginning - before anyone starting asking Chris Butler questions.

And that's means it's a FACT that the WBM was in error.

100% indisputable.

That IS rock solid.

You can flog this dead horse all you like, the news is even the best software can make mistakes.

by Guest 25.06.15 15:53

whodunnit wrote:It seems we are being told in no uncertain terms that an error is a 'fact' and that there is 'no argument'.

But it is.

Did you read Steve Marsdens facebook page?

The FACT is there captured on 17th June for all the world to see.

To which he commented "I'm looking into it".

I wouldn't say this was a fact unless it was.

by Skyrocket1 25.06.15 15:58

I noted in an earlier post - I think in response to something Tony asked/said (haven't got time to find it again now) - that someone said that the WBM couldn't trawl/find individual pages which were unlinked to others. They sounded sure, but I'm not. If 30 April mccann.html was an unlinked page that had been stored as a draft or uploaded to be worked on later (either scenario would mean that there was realistically no chance of access by joe bloggs), why would the WBM not be able access it?
When the WBM trawls, as far as I'm aware, it somehow targets a specific URL and grabs it. That is a stand alone process. Pages linked to the grabbed page are not automatically grabbed. They might be or they might not be grabbed on the same trawl BUT if they are it is not because they are linked to the original page. When the original page is then opened, through the Internet Archive, links to all the other pages within the site will be active but none/some/all of the linked pages will have been grabbed on the same day. The WBM opens the grabbed linked page nearest in date to the original page opened or actually opens a current page from the live site if no page has been grabbed for that link.
I don't know how the WBM targets urls, but if it was only done through page links it would surely have no place to start and even if it was given a starting url it would fizzle out when the links ran out. It would mean that urls would have to be constantly fed in to it to keep it going and that's crazy. It would also mean that any 1 page sites would always be ignored. I can't imagine that there is any way that the 'machine' is 'told' what urls to grab - it can't possibly be. Think of the thousands of new urls (web pages) being created and uploaded every day. The WBM must be able to surf around and 'see' every url on the web at any instant in time and grab whichever it chooses, including stand alone, unlinked pages.
Correct me if I'm wrong but please give reasoning - thanks! thanks

by Guest 25.06.15 15:59

The fact.

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

WBM is wrong.

by HKP 25.06.15 16:10

@Bluebag. What is your point? The question that needs to be answered is whether the McCann.htm existed on 30/04 not this page which is not McCann.htm. The page demonstrated has no real significance to the major question. One page in 485 billion has a questionable link on it!

by whodunnit 25.06.15 16:27

We've all seen the page, BB. The link you provided does not prove Mr. Marsden is claiming an error. His only comment on the page you linked is:
"The CEOP Home page for April 30, 2007 also refers to Missing Madeleine."

Which in my opinion is how WBM crawlers found and captured mccann.html in the first place.

I'll just copy my previous comment on this subject:

I can see how some would be confused by October dates on an April 30th capture of the homepage--and it WAS an April 30th capture because this date ALSO occurs in the May 14th code under the previous captures heading--- but imo this is 1. A separate issue from the mccann.html capture and 2. plausibly explained by a.) dynamic content or b.) a capture was made while CEOP was in the process of editing the page. If neither of these explanations are true then let's hear it---from WBM.

Until someone can credibly refute either or both of these possible explanations--waving hands and declaring 'argument over' does not count---I will continue to believe either one of the explanations are not only possible but probable.

It truly would be nice if someone managed to capture the entire code for the April 30 capture of the homepage.

by Skyrocket1 25.06.15 16:28

Re: my post 1/2 hour ago - I have just found the following. Apologies as I failed to find this before. I will therefore correct myself - the WBM does not pick up unlinked pages.

Unknown sites -- The archive contains crawls of the Web completed by Alexa Internet. If Alexa doesn't know about your site, it won't be archived. Use the Alexa Toolbar and it will know about your page.
Orphan pages -- If there are no links to your pages, the robot won't find it (the robots don't enter queries in search boxes.)

by HKP 25.06.15 16:30

I can't do links and tried to copy over with no success. If someone could add Dr Martins latest blog which covers this subject I would be greatful.

by **PeterMac** 25.06.15 16:36

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

Worth going through twice !

by whodunnit 25.06.15 16:40

I'm glad to see that the 'Only in America' blog is keeping the debate alive. Sorry I can't provide a link.

by whodunnit 25.06.15 16:44

Oops, didn't see your link before I posted, Mr. PM.

Skyrocket, in my opinion the crawlers picked up the link to mccann.html from the April 30 homepage, which is why that page is being so hotly contested.